U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–750PS 2002

GAO’S REPORT, ‘‘VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND

TRAINING SERVICE: FLEXIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY NEEDED TO IMPROVE SERVICE

TO VETERANS,’’ AND THE VA’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

AND EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 30, 2001

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 107–15

(
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman

BOB STUMP, Arizona

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana

JACK QUINN, New York

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

HOWARD P. (BUCK) MCKEON, California

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

JEFF MILLER, Florida

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

LANE EVANS, Illinois

BOB FILNER, California

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas

RONNIE SHOWS, Mississippi

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

PATRICK E. RYAN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman

JACK QUINN, New York

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

JEFF MILLER, Florida

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

LANE EVANS, Illinois

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

October 30, 2001

Page

GAO’s Report, ‘‘Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Flexibility and

Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans,’’ and the VA’s

Implementation of the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program 1

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Simpson .................................................................................................. 1

Hon. Silvestre Reyes ................................................................................................ 2

Hon. Lane Evans ..................................................................................................... 4

Hon. Steve Buyer, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,

prepared statement of .......................................................................................... 55

WITNESSES

Ciccolella, Charles S., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Veterans’ Employment

and Training, Department of Labor; accompanied by Stanley A. Seidel,

Director, Office of Operations and Programs, Veterans’ Employment and

Training, Department of Labor ........................................................................... 16

Prepared statement of Mr. Ciccolella ............................................................. 65

Gross, Calvin, Chairman, National Employment, Training, and Business Opportunities Committee, Vietnam Veterans of America Board of Directors ..... 45

Prepared statement of Vietnam Veterans of America ................................... 141

Hall, Rex, Chairman, Veterans Affairs Committee, National Association of

State Workforce Agencies .................................................................................... 27

Prepared statement of Mr. Hall ...................................................................... 114

Madsen, Roger, Director, Idaho Department of Labor ......................................... 30

Prepared statement of Mr. Madsen ................................................................ 118

Magill, James N., Director of Employment Policy, Veterans of Foreign Wars

of the United States ............................................................................................. 42

Prepared statement of Mr. Magill ................................................................... 139

Nilsen, Sigurd, Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues,

U.S. General Accounting Office .......................................................................... 18

Prepared statement of Mr. Nilsen ................................................................... 73

O’Mahoney, Terrence P., Commissioner Representing Labor, Texas Workforce

Commission ........................................................................................................... 32

Prepared statement of Mr. O’Mahoney ........................................................... 123

Robertson, Steve, Legislative Director, The American Legion ............................. 39

Prepared statement of Mr. Robertson ............................................................. 131

Weidman, Rick, Director of Government Relations, Vietnam Veterans of

America ................................................................................................................. 42

Prepared statement of Vietnam Veterans of America ................................... 141

Williams, Julius, Director of Rehabilitation and Employment, Department

of Veterans Affairs; accompanied by Gloria M. Young, Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling Officer, VA Regional Office, Los Angeles, CA ............. 5

Prepared statement of Mr. Williams .............................................................. 57

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

GAO report entitled, ‘‘Veterans’ Employment and Training Service—Flexibility and Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans,’’ September

12, 2001 ................................................................................................................. 87

Statement of Raymond G. Boland, President, National Association of State

Directors of Veterans Affairs ............................................................................... 145

(1)

GAO’S REPORT, ‘‘VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT

AND TRAINING SERVICE: FLEXIBILITY AND

ACCOUNTABILITY NEEDED TO IMPROVE

SERVICE TO VETERANS,’’ AND THE VA’S

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VOCATIONAL

REHABILITATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS,

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m., in room

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Simpson (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Simpson, Reyes, and Evans.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. I

apologize for being just a few minutes late, but it was like herding

armadillos this morning on the interstate. You know about that,

don’t you, in Texas?

The subcommittee is taking testimony this morning on the General Accounting Office report titled, ‘‘Veterans’ Employment and

Training Service: Flexibility and Accountability Needed to Improve

Services to Veterans,’’ requested by Representative Steve Buyer,

chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, and

also on VA’s ongoing administration of the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program for disabled veterans under chapter

31, title 38, United States Code.

The General Accounting Office report is its seventh report on veterans’ employment issues since 1997. Members, including Terry

Everett, former chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and

Investigations, Bob Stump, former chairman of the Veterans’

Affairs Committee, and Chairman Buyer, have requested past

studies.

Previous GAO reports have focused on a myriad of issues associated with the Labor Department’s administration of veterans’ employment and training programs. These services are furnished, essentially, through state job services and one-stop service centers

throughout the Nation.
2

The reports that the GAO has issued have focused largely on a

lack of vision and strategic planning and on inadequate performance measurement systems, as administered by the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service.

The May 15, 2001, report requested by then-Chairman Stump reported a national veterans entered-employment rate of about 30

percent for program year 1999. Said another way, 70 percent of

veterans who sought employment through public labor exchange offices did not get jobs. We must do better.

With respect to the VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program, the 1999 report of the bipartisan Congressional

Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance, chaired by current Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony

Principi, found the following: ‘‘VA’s vocational rehabilitation and

counseling program is not achieving its statutory purpose of assisting service-connected disabled veterans to become employable and

to obtain and maintain suitable employment.’’

According to the VR&C management reports, approximately 87

percent of program participants are pursuing college-level classroom training, including associate degrees. An attrition rate, compiled by the VR&C design team in 1996 revealed that large numbers of participants dropped out of the program to get a job.

The subcommittee is most interested in ensuring that this program focuses on putting disabled veterans in long-term sustained

employment, not just putting them in the classroom.

I welcome all of today’s witnesses and guests, and now turn to

my friend, Mr. Reyes, the subcommittee’s ranking member, for his

opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SILVESTRE REYES

Mr. REYES. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. As one homeless

Member of Congress to another, we are having to make do without

an office. Both of us are in the Longworth Office Building, and I

think at this point, we do not know when we are going to get back.

So we want to wish you good morning as well, and I would like

to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Simpson for his leadership on what will likely be important legislative issues for those of

us on this subcommittee during the second session of the 107th

Congress.

As always, I would like to recognize the strong efforts of my

friends and colleagues, Representative Chris Smith, our chairman

of the full committee, and Representative Lane Evans, who is joining us here this morning, our ranking member on the Democratic

side. I commend each of them for their work, as well as their continuing efforts to keep America’s veterans at the forefront of the

debate in the 107th Congress.

I would like to welcome all of you here this morning to what will

likely be the final hearing of this subcommittee for the first session

of the 107th Congress, and I’m sure we can all agree that this has

been a rather difficult year.

At no other time in recent memory have the contributions and

sacrifices of the men and women who defended this country in uniform been made so abundantly clear to all of us. I want to commend each of you here this morning for your own unique contribu-
3

tions to Americans veterans, many of which we hope to review here

this morning.

At some point, our military service members will return home.

Because of this, our focus today on employment assistance for the

soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines is entirely appropriate. As

stated in title 38, we have a national responsibility to assist veterans in their efforts to find and maintain stable, permanent jobs.

Additionally, in its final report to Congress, Secretary Principi’s

Transition Commission stressed that employment is, indeed, the

dominant concern for most veterans making this transition to civilian life. I believe it is our clear responsibility to provide the tools

and assistance necessary to maximize opportunities for job-seeking

veterans.

I am pleased that we have this opportunity to hear from the

General Accounting Office on the findings and recommendations included in its report last month, which, as the chairman said, is entitled ‘‘Veterans’ Employment and Training Service—Flexibility

and Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans.’’

At the request of my fellow committee member, Mr. Buyer, GAO

has reviewed the efficiency and effectiveness of the way this agency, within the Department of Labor, administers the DVOP and the

LVER programs.

I strongly believe that we are going to need to update title 38 to

provide some amount of flexibility to respond to the changing needs

over time. Clearly, the funding cycle for these programs must be

updated to reflect all other programs from the Workforce Investment Act.

However, I would like to stress the point that significant changes

to the structure and the staffing of our veterans’ employment programs must be made only after a great deal of thought and thorough discussion, involving all the various interests involved.

I do not think that any of us want to do anything that would reduce the number of our already overburdened DVOPs and LVERs,

and I know that I would certainly not support such an effort.

Finally, I am particularly pleased that the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program is also included on today’s agenda.

I understand that one of our VR&E witnesses has traveled here

from Los Angeles to answer questions at her first congressional

hearing. And she’s a little bit nervous, but it will be a relatively

painless process.

So, welcome, and thank you for coming such a long distance. I

want to extend a warm welcome to Mrs. Gloria Young, and as I

said, thank her for coming all the way from the West Coast here.

In times past, the VR&E program has been criticized for a perceived cultural resistance to placing veterans in employment, rather than preparing them for employment. I think this flagship program, under the leadership of its director, Julius Williams, has

made solid progress with this cultural shift in focus, and I look forward to hearing what he and his staff have to say.

We have several excellent witnesses here with us, Mr. Chairman,

one of which is a personal friend from Texas, and I want to particularly welcome Commissioner Terry O’Mahoney, and he is—I know

he is here, he is back there.
4

I just want you to know that prior to his appointment as commissioner, Mr. O’Mahoney served as labor representative on the Texas

Council on Workforce and Economic Competitiveness, where he

was the chairman of strategic planning. He is a veteran, a naval

aviator commission in the U.S. Marine Corps, honorably discharged

with a rank of major. He also, Mr. Chairman, served and completed 32 years of service with Delta Airlines. So, I want to welcome our good friend from Texas.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity for

an opening statement.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Reyes. Both Texas and Idaho are

represented. We do have a representative, a personal friend of

mine, that served in the Idaho State Senate when I was in the

Idaho State House, and has been the director of our Department

of Labor in Idaho. Mr. Madsen will be testifying today, and we welcome you also, coming all the way from Idaho.

Do other members have opening statements? Yes, Mr. Evans?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LANE EVANS

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for

holding today’s hearing, and I want to begin by thanking those of

you who are here with us today from the Department of Labor.

Over the years I have served on this committee, I know the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service has made efforts to evaluate and improve upon the number of veteran job-seekers who they

can place into permanent, high-quality employment opportunities.

I know efforts have also been underway to transform a troubled

strategic planning process. I want you to know that these efforts

are being recognized.

However, if we are to ever have hope of the government’s ability

to provide quality employment service to our veterans, some

changes in the law are going to be needed. That is why I was

happy to learn of Mr. Buyer’s request that a GAO review of the efficiency and the effectiveness of these programs as they currently

exist, and I am looking forward to receiving witnesses’ testimony

on what I think is an important area in need of legislative

attention.

While the path to linking good jobs with veterans is not entirely

clear, I think there are certainly some steps that we can take to

ensure that the path has begun to be cleared. I strongly support

a cooperative effort among my colleagues and within the Department of Labor to evaluate the roles and functions of veterans

employment specialists. Changes in the number and responsibilities of these important positions must be made very carefully, and

with consensus among the veterans and employment service

communities.

I am also looking forward to re-visiting the issue of the VA’s Vocational Rehab and Employment program. We all know that pursuing a satisfying career is a primary component to living a full and

rewarding life.

Now that my friend, Julius Williams, has had some time to assume the reigns of VR&E, and to help re-focus its goals on job

placement, I am looking forward to hearing about how they have
5

improved their mission to help service-disabled veterans with independent living.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses this morning. The

issues we are considering are very significant.

And I want to say that many of our colleagues cannot be here

today, this is not a day that we have votes until after 6:00. That

does not mean that there is a lack of interest, Mr. Chairman, on

this issue. I think, quite the contrary, there is a great degree of interest, and I just want to make every—assure the audience and the

testifiers today that we are very interested in what they have been

doing.

And thank you for the time.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Evans. I also have an opening

statement from Mr. Buyer that we will submit for the record at

this time, without objection.

[The statement of Hon. Steve Buyer appears on p. 55.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Panel one will please come to the table. Mr. Julius

Williams is here today, representing the Department of Veterans

Affairs, and is accompanied by Ms. Gloria Young.

I would also note that Mr. Williams’ daughter, Sparkle, a student

at Westfield High School in Northern Virginia, is here today to see

democracy in action. Ms. Williams, we welcome you here today,

also.

Mr. Williams, you may begin when ready.

STATEMENT OF JULIUS WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF REHABILITATION AND EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY GLORIA M. YOUNG, VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND COUNSELING OFFICER, VA

REGIONAL OFFICE, LOS ANGELES, CA

Mr. WILLIAMS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of

the Committee. It is a pleasure for me to be here today to discuss

with you the status of the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program for service-disabled veterans.

I have written testimony that has been provided, and I would

like to submit for the record.

Mr. SIMPSON. Without objection.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Today I am accompanied by Ms. Gloria Young,

VR&E officer and manager of the program in our Los Angeles regional office.

Mr. Chairman, no one could have said it more eloquently than

the 65th Congress when it passed the World War Veterans Act in

1924, which said, ‘‘The test of rehabilitation shall be employability.’’ The VA takes very seriously the charge to help disabled

veterans overcome employment barriers and find and keep suitable

employment.

I would like to acknowledge our employment partners at the Department of Labor, who are also here today. We recognize we have

challenges and that we collectively have to ensure that our Nation’s

disabled veterans achieve their rehabilitation and employment

goals. I look forward to working with the incoming leadership of

the Veterans Employment and Training Program, to that end.

Today, I am pleased to report to this subcommittee that, while

focusing on the two statutory program outcomes of veterans achiev-
6

ing and maintaining suitable employment, and the most seriously

disabled veterans achieving appropriate independent living goals,

that for the third year in a row, the VR&E program has rehabilitated more than 10,000 disabled veterans, a threshold that 5 years

ago was considered a stretched goal.

However, the leveling off and slight decline in employment opportunities and placements serves as a reminder that we must be

aggressive, effective, and vigilant over our program strategies.

We feel that there are several initiatives that have substantially

contributed to our recent improvement. The successful roll-out of

corporate WINRS, a comprehensive information and case management system that supports the clinical and business requirements

of our program, is one of those initiatives. This has also proven to

be one of the most successful roll-out of a VBA IT initiative.

The successful piloting, and now roll-out, of case management

and employment services initiatives have also been key success factors. The case management initiative incorporated best clinical

practices into VA’s model, and ensures that veterans receive the

appropriate level of case management, rather than the one-sizefits-all approach.

It also provides that initial evaluations include comprehensive

needs assessments to better identify all barriers veterans encounter to successfully complete their program of rehabilitation.

The employment specialist pilot integrated into the VR&E program is a position that focuses on shaping the expectations of veterans and employers. We need veterans to think, and understand

employment from the moment they apply through rehabilitation,

training, and through the job search phase. Employment specialists

also work aggressively to create an anxious pool of employers that

will hire disabled veterans.

These initiatives complimented our strategy, ensuring that we

are where veterans are, and leveraging technology while providing

rehabilitation services to veterans. This is especially important

when serving our most disabled clients.

Other key and ongoing initiatives are re-engineering quality assurance program; a complete re-write of our program’s regulations;

training VR&E staff, emphasizing the current rehabilitation best

practices, such as the transferable skills analysis.

The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service developed these strategies by collaborating with internal and external

partners, such as field VR&E staff, the Department of Labor, Small

Business Administration, Veteran Service Organizations, the private and professional rehab community and employers, to name a

few.

Mr. Chairman, I hope these strategies, initiatives, and performance indicators demonstrate that VA and VR&E has raised the bar

to meet the expectations of this Congress, the American people, as

well as the needs of disabled veterans.

However, as important, if not more important than the strategies, has been the work of the VR&E staff in VA regional offices

and out-based locations across the Nation who have stepped up to

the plate the last 3 years, hitting over 30,000 home runs, one veteran at a time, meeting their individual needs and making a dif-
7

ference in each of their lives. I am extremely proud of them, and

grateful for their efforts and commitment.

Mr. Chairman, in these uncertain times, I also can assure you

that the program stands ready with the same experience, concern,

and dedicated counseling staff to serve America and its veterans,

particularly in the areas of grief and crisis counseling. We have

been there in past tragedies, to serve in whatever role we were

needed. We confirm to you, and the rest of America, our readiness

to the same in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my statement, and I

will be pleased to answer any questions that you or the other committee members may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams appears on p. 57.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Williams. I appreciate your statement.

We have been focused on getting results and good outcomes for

veterans in the programs we authorized, and in fact, that is our

purpose.

In your statement, for the record, you noted that the VR&E had

rehabilitated over 10,000 disabled veterans. What do you define as

‘‘rehabilitated,’’ and is that the same as employed?

Mr. WILLIAMS. As I mentioned earlier, we have two statutory

outcomes. One is finding a veteran, or assisting a veteran, in obtaining and maintaining suitable employment. The other is, in

those more seriously disabled cases, where employment is not feasible, assisting a veteran with all the services needed to help them

obtain and maintain maximum independence in independent

living.

Over the past year, in the year 2001, we found suitable employment for 8,559 disabled veterans. And in the more difficult category

of serious employment handicap and independent living cases, we

assisted veterans to achieve their goal in 1,557 cases.

Mr. SIMPSON. How many veterans were in the VR&E program

last year, what percentage became employed after completing the

program, and what percentage did the VA define as rehabilitated?

Mr. WILLIAMS. We have 63,000 veterans currently in the program. Of those exiting the program last year, 65 percent were rehabilitated. That is the highest rehabilitation rate in the history of

the program.

Mr. SIMPSON. On page 5 of your written statement, you say that,

‘‘Current legislation relating to the number of veterans who may

enter programs of independent living jeopardizes VA’s legal standing to serve disabled veterans.’’ Could you please elaborate, and

has the committee previously heard from the VA about this?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, currently, there is a statutory limit of the

number of veterans that may enter into an independent living program in any given year, and that limit is 500.

As we began over the last 3 years to focus more on the most seriously disabled, that limit has become a problem for us. We have,

in fact, contacted your staffs and briefed them on this issue.

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you have a suggestion as to what that limit

ought to be, if we need to change that?
8

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, my desire would be that there not be a

limit, in order that we would always be able to serve all veterans

that fall into this very seriously disabled category.

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate your comments and the testimony that

you have delivered today. Let me ask one other thing. It may seem

a little strange, and I do not expect an answer right now. But as

I read through some of these reports of what we have done in the

past, it seems like we always look at the box that we are currently

in, the situation that we currently have, the structure we have.

And as we look at ways to improve it, we look at ways to try to

improve that box, by tweaking it here and there, and that type of

thing. Sometimes protecting current employees comes into the situation, protecting what preconceived notions people have of the best

way to do something.

What I would like—and I will ask the other panelists to do the

same thing, and I will follow up on it not, maybe, in written form,

but in personal conversations with you, and so forth—if we had no

program in existence today, and Congress said, ‘‘We want to provide employment opportunities at a higher level for veterans,’’ and

that it is a priority for veterans, what changes would you make?

What system would you establish if you eliminated everything

that currently exists, and said, ‘‘Okay, we want to develop the best

system to deliver employment opportunities for veterans that we

could possibly deliver.’’ And think outside the box that currently

exists. If there are opportunities to develop a better system, then

we ought to be looking at those.

Some of them may not be politically practical, some of them may

not be financially practical, but I would like all of our witnesses to

start thinking in those terms, and looking at what we might be

able to do to improve the entire system, regardless of the system

that currently exists, if you understand what I’m saying.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Very clearly.

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that, and I am sure we will have an

opportunity to sit down and talk about this in the future. But it

is kind of what I have been looking at, as I read through some of

these reports. Maybe that is because I come to this as somewhat

of a neophyte in the area, that I try to look at it in terms of how

we might be able to address the entire system, rather than tweak

the system that currently exists. So, I appreciate your testimony.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Reyes.

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I did not want to interrupt you, but currently in conference, the elimination of that 500

limit—person cap—is on the Senate provision. It is not on ours, but

hopefully we can support elimination of that so that would address

the concerns of Mr. Williams. So we hope and agree that that

should be done.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you for that.

Mr. REYES. I was going to congratulate you for the testimony

that shows that over 10,000 disabled veterans have been rehabilitated under VR&E.

There are a couple of areas that the GAO report talks about, one

of which is providing data about these over 10,000 veterans that

are helped through this VR&E. Can you tell me what data is cur-
9

rently available, such as the kinds of jobs, the wages that they

earn? Do we have—is there a system in place that actually tracks

that data and makes it available, as the GAO is suggesting that

we track?

In addition to that, what types of jobs the veterans are obtaining,

how much money they are able to earn, and the—on the average,

the amount of time that veterans are able to hold on to these jobs.

In other words, I think what we are getting at here is making

sure that we look at, statistically, not just the statistics of veterans

that have been served. Because I know from my experience in my

district, a lot of the veterans complain that they are often used just

as tic marks on a statistical score sheet, and then we do not have

the capability of looking underneath those statistics and seeing exactly the kind of long-term benefit that they are gleaning.

So, do you have that kind of information?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, we do, and I would be very glad to provide

it to the committee. One of the things I would like to say about

that, and that is the employment specialist position has been one

that has been very key in making sure that we identify these types

of statistics, and this type of information, because it is very important in establishing strategies to make sure that we attract

employers.

Interestingly enough, one of the statistics I can draw to real

quickly, the average earned income of a veteran entering into our

program during the last fiscal year was $4,841. The average earned

income of a veteran leaving our program during that same period

was $28,004.

Now, I have to put a little caveat on that, and that is that that

does not represent the income that a veteran may have had, had

they not entered in our program. They then may have gotten some

type of employment that maybe would have been greater than the

4,841 number. But that is the actual income when they entered the

program.

Certainly, one of the things that the employment specialist position also did was enabled us to look at the top 10 categories of jobs

that were out there, and then make sure that we go back and line

up training and our rehabilitation plans with those market job categories that are out there, so that we were not training veterans

for jobs that did not exist. That was one of the criticisms that the

program had received earlier.

So, I tell you that I think that VBA, as a whole, but VR&E in

particular, has become data-savvy. This has served us, I think, better. In our VBA annual report there is certain information that answers a number of the questions that you just asked, and I would

be glad to provide that for you, so that you could have that statistical data.

Mr. REYES. Well, thank you. And I think that the concern—or,

the GAO wants there to be a comparative analysis between what

is achieved through the VA, and the corresponding program

through the Department of Labor. Apparently, we have not been

able to track that. Maybe we can get some of that information, as

well.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Sir, we have very recently met with the members

of the staff at the Department of Labor to look at joint reporting
10

requirements, and how we can better do that. So we would be more

than willing to do that.

Mr. REYES. If I can switch to Ms. Young, with regard to the federal contractor job listing, can you tell us, from your own experience, how useful this is to you when you are trying to help VR&E

program participants? And in particular, is this list kept up to

date, and does it usually result in successfully getting a veteran a

job?

Ms. YOUNG. First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting

me. It is such an honor to be here, although I am a little nervous,

as you said earlier. I was told this was a friendly panel, so not to

panic.

When I first heard about the federal listing, I was rather excited,

because here was a pool of potential employers that we could use

to directly place veterans into jobs. But as we tried using that list,

I found that it was of no benefit. There was no direct connection

between our veterans who are job-ready, and the openings—or no

openings—that might be listed with the Federal agencies. So, it did

not help us much.

Mr. REYES. And the reason for that? Was it because the veterans

lacked the skills, or the program did not provide the kind of training that was available for contractors? Was it just a perfunctory

listing by federal contractors in order to comply with maybe a certain provision of the federal contract? What?

Ms. YOUNG. I found it to be a perfunctory listing that had no real

openings. We may have had job-ready veterans, but there was no

connection between our veterans and the employer listing.

Mr. REYES. Do you have any recommendations as to how we

could better mesh those, the availability of jobs with the veterans

training programs?

Ms. YOUNG. If the listing were more active, let’s say. It is just

a perfunctory listing, and that is not useful. There are, I believe,

DVOPs who work with that listing, but when we worked with that

DVOP, there was no direct job referral. There was a gap there. The

idea was good.

Mr. REYES. Mm-hmm. So it was absolutely of no use?

Ms. YOUNG. I found it not useful.

Mr. REYES. Okay. I see my time is up. Mr. Chairman, I have

some other questions, but I will defer to Mr. Lane.

Mr. SIMPSON. We will come back for a second round, if you would

like to ask them. Mr. Evans.

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Young, we appreciate

your coming from California.

Ms. YOUNG. Thank you.

Mr. EVANS. And we are very impressed with the work that you

have been doing, so we are glad to have you. I understand that

your office, in 1993, rehabilitated 46 veterans. But by the year

2001, some 376 veterans are planning to be rehabilitated. That is

an outstanding record. We wish we had other agencies of the government working as efficiently as your office has.

Can you tell us why you were so successful, in a few phrases?

Ms. YOUNG. We, the staff and I, put our heads together. We did

hear the mandate from Congress that we needed to do better, and

we brain stormed. Previously, we would focus on training and edu-
11

cation, and keeping veterans in the program. Later, in the past,

let’s say, 5 years, and more so in the past 3 years, we focused very

strongly on employment placement services, employment, job skills,

what the employers are looking for, not so much school, length of

training, college, degrees.

We found that veterans did not have the sustaining power to

stay in school for long periods of time, although our program could

fund long periods of training. So we looked at skills-based and

short-term training. That has made a major difference to our program, and in the success of veterans being placed.

We had a large staff turnover in the past several years, and what

we looked to hiring in place of staff who left, transferred, retired,

were employees who were committed to serving veterans. I learned

through the Nordstrom business practice that you cannot pay for

nice, you have to hire nice. And that is what we did. We cannot

train commitment, we have to hire commitment. And one of the

things that I look most for in qualified employees, or potential employees, is their commitment to serving veterans. And that has

helped a lot.

Our employees are held accountable. We use what is called a balanced score card, and it is, in essence, a report card. And we track

data and post their performance, and it has been very effective in

giving feedback.

The economy, of course, helped in the past several years, the job

market was open and we could help veterans get jobs easier, than

it is during a recession.

We have had visionary leaders. Julius Williams is one of them.

He has really focused on employment and job skills. His initiatives

have helped the program, you have heard some of his initiatives

this morning. He is supportive of field operations, he recognizes

achievements and that helps.

Stewart Liff, I am sure some of you have heard of him, he is the

director of the Los Angeles regional office. He has the talent and

capability to combine mission with metrics. He is unusual in that

he is left-brained and right-brained. He is artistic, and also business-minded. Mr. Liff has transformed the Los Angeles regional office with what he calls ‘‘visual management.’’

And if I may submit some displays and pictures of our office. Our

office looks like an office that serves veterans, not just a government agency or government office with halls, but we have pictures

honoring veterans, we have pictures of veterans in their uniforms

hanging from the ceiling. We are reminded daily of our mission. We

are reminded that our mission is very single-minded. And we are—

it is exciting to work for a director like that. Besides having an

overwhelming focus on serving veterans, he also is big on recognizing individuals and awarding for success.

We use contractors. I know this is somewhat of a controversial

subject, but contractors have helped us in the past. We have used

contractors for probably 6 years in Los Angeles, and over time,

have learned to use them effectively. We track their performance.

One of the nice things about contractors is their location. We

have—Los Angeles is located at a regional office. We have five

outbased sites. But that is very limited in serving the veterans in

the eight-county area that we serve in California. Their locale
12

saves veterans a one to 3-hour drive to our office, and having to

make two or more visits for their evaluation. Contractors can provide that service a lot better than we can in limited locations.

As Mr. Williams mentioned, he talked about serving seriously

disabled veterans with independent living services. This is one of

our nicest additions. We have had the program in place for all

these years, but more lately have focused on seriously disabled veterans who, in the past, we pretty much said we could not help,

they were not able to return to employment. But with independent

living services, we have been able to help them improve the quality

of their daily living.

I have some instances, if you want, some stories about veterans

who we have helped through independent living services.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Evans. Ms. Young, I would like to

hear about some of those. I appreciate your comments. I was going

to ask you to talk a little bit about your program, and you have

done that.

I might, by way of introduction, say that Ms. Young is a Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling Officer at the VA Regional Office in Los Angeles, and was born and raised in the garden island

of—which one is the garden island?

Ms. YOUNG. Kauai.

Mr. SIMPSON. Kauai, Hawaii. Makes you wonder why she left.

(Laughter.)

She earned her bachelor’s degree from Indiana State University

in education, and a master’s degree in clinical psychology from

Pepperdine University in California. Mrs. Young started her VA career as a counseling psychologist working with disabled veterans

and has been in management for the past 12 years.

She and her husband Jack, a retired economist, have two children, Lesley and Jared, and—there is a misprint here, that says

they are 28 and 26. That can’t be so, can it?

Ms. YOUNG. They are, they are. (Laughter.)

Mr. SIMPSON. Gloria enjoys golfing, gardening, and gourmet cooking. Yes, we are in luck. You will best remember her for her skills

in acupressure and reflexology, if you should ever need some

‘‘hands on’’ rehab. And many of us around here need that.

But I appreciate your comments, and if you do have some instances of examples that have gone on in your office, we would be

glad to hear those.

Ms. YOUNG. We had a visually impaired veteran, who we helped

through the independent living services. He was home-bound, sitting in a dark room, no socialization.

We evaluated his situation and provided him with an ocular lens,

which enables him to mobilize out of his home, which means walking down the street, meeting with his buddies, and socializing. And

it really expanded his world, and he is grateful for that.

We know of a paraplegic veteran who was, again, rather homebound with his wheelchair. We provided him with an electric scooter. And I don’t know if you have seen electric scooters, but they increase mobility over rough terrain—it empowered him.

He can now escort his little daughter to the edge of his property,

which is off of the main road, as she takes the school bus and
13

meets her there, so you know, he has a lot more involvement with

home activities and can go outside of his home. We have helped

some other veterans with scooters, too.

Veterans are provided with artwork, woodwork, stained glass

training. And this is not for employment purposes, but it is to enhance their activities of daily living. We have yet other veterans

that we provide personal computers, software and training, and

some extensive training, not for the purpose of employment, again.

But with the Internet, they have really expanded their world.

And their families, their families comment that not only do the

veterans have something to look forward to, but they are more social in the family setting, and it has helped them reach out.

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that, and I do appreciate your comments that it is truly the commitment of the individual working in

the center that makes the difference in how successful any program

is. That is probably true throughout business anywhere.

So, the more we can find committed individuals to work in this

program, and with a goal of focusing on making sure that veterans

receive the services that they are entitled to and deserve, the better off any program we have will be. So, I appreciate that. Mr.

Reyes?

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was curious, based on

your comments in support of the role of contractors, Ms. Young,

how do you provide oversight, and how do you get accountability?

What is in place, in terms of goals and tracking, and those kinds

of management tools that are necessary to tell you if you are being

successful through a contractor?

Ms. YOUNG. My staff and I monitor contractors closely. We work

directly with them, staff every case that we assign or put into the

program. We are very closely connected to the contractors on a regular basis. This is for evaluation and planning purposes.

What we do to track them and to hold them accountable, which

is something they do not like too much, is to use, a balanced score

card on them, in essence, a report card. So we are measuring how

many cases were assigned, how many veterans they helped us find

entitled with the evaluation, how many rehabilitation plans they

wrote—this is the program that is designed for the veteran, whether it is just placement services, or whether it involves training.

We want contractors to write as many plans as they can. They

can provide evaluations, but if they do not put the veteran into the

program, it doesn’t serve the veteran. So number of plans is important. Later on, we will track how many rehabilitations they helped

realize. As mentioned, earlier, 376 veterans were rehabilitated last

fiscal year in Los Angeles. We want to see how many of those came

through the contractors. So they have their report card, and this

is their feedback.

Mr. REYES. Are there any particular kinds of incentives built in

to help them take their role in helping veterans more seriously, or

accelerated, or however you want to describe that?

Ms. YOUNG. The chief incentive is continue working with us, assigning cases to them, which keeps their funding, as they get paid

for their contracts.

They all, generally speaking, say how they appreciate working

with veterans. They feel somewhat patriotic, they just enjoy the
14

work, working with veterans. Veterans are respectful, for the most

part, and their other work is very different from working with veterans, per se.

So, the incentive is one, working with veterans, the other is continuing to be assigned cases by our office.

Mr. REYES. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Williams, I am curious on the

employment specialist initiative.

I did a little bit of this after I got discharged from the Army and

awaiting to get my appointment with the border patrol. And back

then, it was not an employment specialist or anything that fancy,

I was just called a job coach. And my duties were to canvas in the

community and find job openings that the program could find people to place in.

I am curious, under your initiative, what kind of market research

and analysis is required of these individuals?

Mr. WILLIAMS. One of the things that we found is that as we focused on suitable employment for the more seriously disabled veterans, that there are many more challenges. Just finding the openings and the jobs, certainly, we partner with the Department of

Labor, and the DVOPs, and certainly they help us with that.

But one of the things that we found in our program was that we

needed to do 2- to 5-year projections, since the average period of

time a veteran spends with us is somewhere around 30 months,

that we need to make sure that we are projecting the types of jobs

that will be out there, and the types of employment opportunities

that will be out there, to make sure that we then feed that information back through the rehab counselors who are working with

the veterans so that that veteran’s employment expectations are

checked at the very beginning.

So, quite often, we are doing extensive market analysis to identify the jobs, and we are also working very closely with the VR&E

staff to make sure that the expectations within the staff—within

our program, either on the part of the staff, or on the part of the

veterans—are correct so that we can best position ourselves for

success.

Mr. REYES. One of the biggest—again, based on my brief experience in this area—one of the biggest challenges was in making sure

that you established, basically, a good reputation for providing employers solid performers in there.

How does this interplay between the individual that’s out there

looking for these positions and the ones that are preparing veterans to go into these positions, how is that accomplished?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think that is very key. One of the things we

must do is make sure that we case-manage, virtually, the employers, to make sure that if we place a veteran with that employer we

do follow-up, both from the standpoint of making sure that veteran

has the best opportunity for success, but that that employer then

will look to us when they have future employment needs, and they

will look at the rehab program for a possible resource.

We virtually must stay with that employer and that veteran.

Now, statutorially, we have 60 days, but I will tell you that I don’t

think there is anyone that would suggest that 60 days is adequate.

And we must stay with that employer and that veteran to make

sure that there is a continuous success story.
15

Mr. REYES. And finally, are there any anecdotal stories that you

want to share with us of things that worked out really well that

made a difference for the employer, as well as the veteran?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Actually, it is interesting. We are just preparing

a film for our employment specialists to take out to employers. And

there is a story—I believe it is in Atlanta with Fish and Wildlife—

where we have a story where they hired one veteran. That veteran

did a very good job, got promoted. Hired another veteran, that veteran did a very good job for them, got promoted. And now they

have a third veteran, and that veteran, hopefully, is looking forward to getting promoted.

But we will make sure you get a copy of that film, because it

does portray that particular story. And we find that, you know, the

type of work that we like to see.

Mr. REYES. Very good. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Williams

and Ms. Young, for being with us this morning.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Evans.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Williams, just one question. I am interested in

the military-civilian transferability skills identifier. Can you tell

me what the transferable skills of a Marine Corps rifleman are?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, the transferable work skills analysis is a requirement for us. And what we are basically trying to do is to look

at the skills and the experiences that a service person may have

had, and try and identify ways that we can better analyze those

skills and experience, so that we can determine how to transfer

those into civilian life.

This is not particular to VR&E, as a matter of fact. DOL, the Department of Defense, all have collaboratively been trying to work

on making our work in this area more proficient. Certainly, the Department of Defense has certain tools that they give us so that we

can identify MOSs, or the skills and the competencies associated

with that, so that we can do a better job of transferring a veteran’s

experiences into civilian life.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, and I thank this panel for your commitment to veterans, and I look forward to working with you to

provide the best services we can for our veterans. Thank you for

your testimony today.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you for listening.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you for traveling from California.

Ms. YOUNG. Thank you for having me.

Mr. SIMPSON. We are ready for our second panel. The Honorable

Charles (Chick) Ciccolella is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Veterans’ Employment and Training Services at the Department of

Labor. We welcome you, Chick.

He is accompanied by Mr. Stanley Seidel.

Dr. Sigurd Nilsen is here on behalf of the General Accounting

Office.

We will begin with Mr. Ciccolella and hold our questions until

both of you have testified. Chick.
16

STATEMENTS OF CHARLES S. CICCOLELLA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ACCOMPANIED BY STANLEY A.

SEIDEL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; AND SIGURD NILSEN, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S.

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

STATEMENT OF CHARLES S. CICCOLELLA

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Chairman Simpson, Mr. Ranking Member, Mr.

Reyes, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before

your committee.

The letter of invitation asked our organization, VETS, to discuss

two sections of the GAO’s report concerning the delivery of employment and training services by this agency and our state partners.

Sir, we have submitted detailed testimony for the record, we

would ask that that be a part of the record.

Mr. SIMPSON. Without objection.

Mr. CICCOLELLA. I would like to use my time here to tell you how

VETS will address the issues that were addressed by the General

Accounting Office. Also, I would like to talk to you for a moment

about our philosophy on how we intend to lead the Veterans’ Employment Training Service, and most importantly to you, we will

answer any questions that you pose before us.

Sir, before beginning, I would like to express the Department of

Labor’s gratitude to the work that is being done by not only our

organization, but the Department of Defense, the VA, and this committee as well, in terms of advising and protecting service members’ rights and re-employment rights, employment and re-employment rights.

I would note that this committee was the first committee that

put a press release up on a website. That was the first press release that I saw. And of course, we have done the same, VA has

done that, Veterans’ Administration has done that, and the employer support for the Guard and Reserve are all working very

hard.

But this is an area that does not get a lot of attention. And while

continuing to fulfill the overall employment and training mission

that we have, our state and assistant state directors have given

over 100 briefings to National Guardsmen and Reservists, their

employers, and employment specialists.

In addition, we have had an outreach program to the labor associations, human resource associations, and we are going to be

working with the unions and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Now, the reason I mention that is because it illustrates the commitment that the Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, and President

Bush have to our Nation’s veterans and the contributions that they

make. And with a close working relationship with this committee

and the entire Congress, we will continue to build on that level of

effort, and we are going to extend that to all level of VETS’ programs and services.

The GAO has given VETS and the Congress an important blueprint on how our programs can best fit into the Workforce Invest-
17

ment Act infrastructure, and the steps that this agency needs to

take.

GAO has recommended that title 38 be revised. We agree with

that, and we want to work with you on that. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on that. We believe that can be done

while keeping the original intent and mission of the DVOP and the

LVER programs so that they may continue to assure the priority

in the provision of all services to our veterans.

We also agree that the roles and responsibilities of the DVOPs

and the LVERs should not be narrowly prescribed by law. It’s the

services to those veterans that should be preserved, not overly prescriptive roles. We are certain that this can be done while preserving the specialized services that the DVOPs and the LVERs provide

to the different categories of veterans.

Since the DVOP and the LVER are intended to separate, or perform separate functions requiring different skill sets, we are uncertain whether a single staffing grant would best meet the needs of

America’s veterans. But we are open to discussion on that point,

for the best model for funding those important positions.

We agree with the General Accounting Office that past administration and oversight of the grants has focused on prescriptive outputs, instead of continuous improvement process in finding the systemic problems and the best practices, and spreading those around.

For that reason, we are developing new monitoring guidelines for

our VETS staff that address teamwork, negotiation skills, technical

assistance, and capacity-building.

The General Accounting Office recommended that VETS develop

flexible performance goals for the states, and a performance measurement system based on accurate and timely data. We have done

that.

We have published the proposed new state performance measures last May, we will publish the final notice on them in December. Those measures, we believe, will improve the way state performance is measured and the outcomes are determined, how they

are measured and how they are evaluated.

Beginning in January, we will start negotiating with the states

to establish their expected levels of performance for the program

year, the next program year, which is 2002. And those negotiations

will include recommended prototype performance standards that

can be used as a guide for the states, for them to establish the performance standards and the acceptable level of standard for the

DVOP and LVERs.

Together with our partners within the labor department, the employment and training administration, VETS has developed new

data collection strategies for the unemployment insurance wage

records. The UI wage records are a reliable source of information

that will eliminate the existing duplicate data collection efforts,

and they are going to save a lot of time.

VETS is committed to striking the appropriate balance between

its legislatively mandated requirements, and the need for the

states to operate their programs with flexibility and in the best interests of their veterans. We are committed to better integrating

our services into the new environment.
18

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me talk for just a moment about how

we intend to operate in this administration. First of all, we will

honor and faithfully serve America’s veterans by fostering cooperation and partnership with the states that will nurture and make

the situation where every veteran can realize his or her full potential in the civilian economy. That means the best service to our veterans for quality careers with good pay and benefits for them and

their families.

Secondly, I assure you that we are committed to making judicious and effective use of all of our resources, and to involving all

of our stakeholders in this agency’s mission, and to modernizing

and streamlining this agency’s operations, its programs, and its

regulations. We can’t serve veterans in the 21st century with 20th

century tools or outdated ideas. We are working now to give our

folks on the front lines the right tools and the training to do their

job effectively.

Thirdly, we are going to keep the lines of communication open

with Congress, this committee, and the counterpart committee on

the Senate side, and our state partners, and the VSOs, and the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, so that together we

can form the cornerstone of the modernization process for VETS.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, VETS will be responsive, candid, and

honest to all our constituencies. That will enable us to achieve our

goals under our new assistant secretary, and those goals are that

every veteran who looks to the public employment service deserves

to find a good job and a good career, that we take homeless veterans off the streets of this great Nation, and we put them on the

road to self-sufficiency and self-respect, and that every Reservist or

National Guardsman or military member who leaves a civilian job

to answer the call to this country should be able to easily return

to that job or a comparable job.

So that completes my statement, and I would be happy to take

any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ciccolella appears on p. 65.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Nilsen.

STATEMENT OF SIGURD NILSEN

Mr. NILSEN. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, and Ranking Member Reyes. I am pleased to be here today to present the findings

of our report on employment assistance provided to veterans

through the Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and

Training Service, and the two grant programs, the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program, DVOP, and the Local Veterans Employment Representative program, or LVER. And I ask that my full

statement be read into the record.

Mr. SIMPSON. Without objection.

Mr. NILSEN. Thank you. As you know, these grant programs

allow states to hire staff to serve veterans exclusively, and are

mandatory partners in the one-stop system created in 1998 by the

Workforce Investment Act.

One of the Workforce Investment Act’s goals is to unify the services provided by numerous programs through the one-stops, and to

give states the flexibility to design services to fit local workforce
19

needs. Our report assessed the efficiency and effectiveness of VETS

administration of the DVOP and the LVER programs.

In summary, we found that first, VETS does not adequately assess the effectiveness of the assistance provided to veterans; second, that VETS does not adequately oversee the DVOP and LVER

grant programs; and third, that the DVOP and LVER programs

have not adequately adapted to the new one-stop environment created by the Workforce Investment Act.

We conclude, as the deputy assistant secretary has mentioned,

that in order to make better use of the DVOP and LVER staff services, VETS needs the legislative authority to grant each state more

flexibility to design how the staff will fit into the one-stop system.

Also, VETS needs to be able to hold states accountable for achieving agreed-upon goals.

I would like to elaborate some on each of these points. First,

while veterans receive priority employment services at the onestops, as required under the law, the effectiveness of these services

cannot be determined. Priority service to veterans at one-stops is

usually demonstrated by the higher rates of service for veterans, as

compared to those for non-veterans. However, VETS does not currently collect appropriate data for determining the effectiveness of

these services, and the agency lacks sufficient employment outcome

data that would indicate whether services provided to veterans are

effective.

VETS has proposed changes to its performance measures, such

as requiring states to report job retention. But these will not be implemented until July 1, and I commend the deputy assistant secretary for saying that these are on track and that, in fact, they will

be effective with the next program year.

The only outcome data that states currently report to VETS, the

percentage of veterans entering employment, is collected inconsistently, from state to state, making state-by-state comparisons

difficult.

Secondly, despite recently proposed improvements to its performance measures, VETS’ overall management of the DVOP and LVER

grants is ineffective because the agency does not have a comprehensive system in place to manage state performance in serving

veterans.

In order to oversee a program effectively, an agency must have

a performance management system that establishes clear goals for

those administering the program. However, VETS does not communicate a consistent message to states on expected performance. For

example, while one agency goal is to provide high-quality case

management to veterans, the agency does not have state performance measures related to case management.

Also, VETS’ performance management system lacks meaningful

incentives to encourage states to perform well. Presently, states are

neither rewarded for meeting or exceeding their performance measures, nor penalized for failing to meet these measures.

To provide effective oversight, an agency must also gauge the

quality of service offered by the program, and monitor the program’s progress. VETS has federal staff in every state to monitor

the DVOP and LVER grants. However, this federal monitoring is

often unproductive and state officials characterize the DVOP and
20

LVER grants as being micro-managed by VETS. Also, we found

that VETS’ monitoring is often redundant with the state monitoring done under the Workforce Investment Act.

Third, according to the state and local officials we interviewed,

the DVOP and LVER grant programs do not operate well in the

one-stop centers. As you know, title 38 prescribes how DVOP and

LVER staff is to be assigned to local offices, and does not give

states the flexibility to move staff to locations where officials believe veterans could best be served. This restriction may result in

too many staff in some locations and too few in other areas. In addition, the separate DVOP and LVER grants also limit states’ flexibility in staffing decisions.

States are also constrained when it comes to deciding what

DVOP and LVER staff members do, and whom to serve. The law

specifies the duties for DVOP and LVER staff, but we found that

they generally perform similar duties.

Furthermore, DVOP and LVER staff may not serve certain individuals who may qualify for veterans’ services under other employment and training programs. For example, DVOP and LVER staff

are not allowed to serve veterans who were on active duty for 180

days or less, and are generally not permitted to serve Reservists or

National Guard members.

In conclusion, while the Congress has clearly defined employment assistance to veterans as a national responsibility, the law

has not been amended to reflect the recent changes in the employment and training service delivery system introduced by WIA.

In our report, we recommend that the Congress consider revising

title 38 to eliminate much of its prescriptive nature to allow for

more local flexibility. Some examples would be allowing VETS and

states the flexibility to define the roles and responsibilities for staff

serving veterans, providing states and local offices more discretion

to decide where to locate DVOP and LVER staff, and to allow for

half-time DVOP positions.

Also, we recommend that the Congress consider combining the

DVOP and LVER grant programs into a single staffing grant to

provide states and localities with more flexibility.

In addition, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct

VETS to establish more effective management and monitoring of

the DVOP and LVER programs, by allowing states flexibility in

planning how to best serve veterans while at the same time holding states accountable for meeting the agency’s goals.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be

happy to answer any questions that you or Mr. Reyes may have at

this time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nilsen appears on p. 73.]

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank both of you for your testimony. Chairman

Smith could not be here today, he is back in New Jersey helping

his district constituents that have been poisoned with anthrax. And

so, on his behalf, I have a question.

Mr. Ciccolella, the GAO is essentially saying that VETS is hamstrung by current law from reforming or holding states more accountable. Do you agree with this assessment?

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Mr. Chairman, in the past, we’ve gauged state

performance based on relative measures, the number of services
21

that were provided to veterans versus the number of services that

were provided to non-veterans. That is a process-oriented performance measure.

States need outcome measures. States get the grant money, they

want to own that money. And states truly, in most cases I believe,

know what to do with the grant money. But because the responsibility for our Nation’s veterans and their employment is a national responsibility, this program has always been oriented and organized so that states were to be accountable.

Now, we have looked at the performance measures that we had,

and we are changing those. And they start, the new measures

begin on the first of July of next year. That is the beginning of the

state’s program year. And they will measure entering employment,

and they will measure employment after 6 months, which is really

an important measure, and they will measure entered employment

after staff-assisted services. So, many veterans today and in the future who are disabled will need those staff-assisted services.

I believe that if our state directors and assistant directors are

working well and closely with the State Employment Security Commission people and one-stops, there is absolutely no reason and no

excuse why states cannot be held accountable. And for those states

that are performing well, we need to do things that enhance their

ability to do better.

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I appreciate that, and I am glad you’re

changing the focus from process to outcome because, quite frankly,

the outcome is what counts here. We are trying to get employment

services for veterans and, frankly, I do not care how we do it, as

long as we deliver the services for the veterans.

And it seems like often times in government we look at the processes, and we get so ingrained in the detail of the processes that

the outcomes become lost. So I appreciate that change in focus, and

I think this report points that out to a large degree, that increased

flexibility will, hopefully, help those states meet those goals, and

the Department of Labor meet those goals, as long as we have

some type of way of measuring whether we are achieving what are

attempting to achieve, and that is employment for veterans.

Do we have a problem with the two monitoring entities—the

Federal Government and the State government, and the chain of

command of the DVOPs and the LVERs that are out there in the

field and who they report to, and so forth?

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Well, the DVOPs, Mr. Chairman, work for the

states. So——

Mr. SIMPSON. But they are funded by a grant from the——

Mr. CICCOLELLA. They are funded by grants from the unemployment trust fund that comes into the Federal Government and goes

out to the states.

The chain of command for VETS, for the Veterans Employment

Training Services is, obviously, from national headquarters through

our regional administrators, state directors, and assistant directors.

The chain of command for the DVOP and the LVER is the office

director.

I am certain that there are problems in certain employment offices, local offices, one-stops, where the relationship is not as good

as it should be. On the other hand, the function and the purpose
22

of our national oversight of this program ought to be with the directors of veterans employment working with those state directors

to find out why performance is not where it should be, as opposed

to the checklist mentality of coming in on office reviews and merely

checking off things.

The results are not forthcoming. There may be systemic problems. Now, we run this program in 50 states. Surely, there are best

practices that are working, given that every state has its own labor

market and its own labor market conditions and its own high or

low employment rate.

But those best business practices ought to be communicated to

our state directors, and they ought to be communicating those in

an advisory way, through the state chain of command so that the

DVOP and LVER can both be more productive.

Mr. SIMPSON. Are they doing that? Are they taking those best

management practices and communicating them to the state level?

Mr. CICCOLELLA. In all honesty, we are beginning to do that, sir.

The title 38 requires us to issue prototype performance standards

for the DVOP and the LVER. In the past, those standards were

based on the old title 38, those very prescriptive job descriptions

of the DVOP and LVER.

Now, we are taking those and we are looking at the legislation

that exists. But we are also looking at our strategic plan and our

experience, and we are trying to tailor those measures to provide

them as a guide to those office managers and the State Employment Security Commission people, so that they can, in turn, establish performance standards for the DVOP and the LVERs. Now, if

that is done well, it should be a very successful approach.

Mr. SIMPSON. You mentioned rewarding those states that are

doing well, and penalizing those states that are not doing as well.

Obviously, penalizing states that are not doing as well, if you do

it financially, means that money is coming out of those services for

the veterans that need those services, so that is sort of problematic

to start with.

Do you have suggestions on the best way to reward success and

to penalize non-compliance, or non-success?

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Sure. There are a number of ways to do that.

I think we just need to think them through. We have a recapture

process, and which, fundamentally, the purpose of that is to prevent the money from going back into the treasury so that at some

point down in the second or third or fourth quarter, a state that

doesn’t use all its money, that staffing grant money, for staff, then

can get access to that, or states can be plussed-up if some states

are not going to use it for staffing grants.

But there is other flexibility—and that is monetary —there is

other flexibility that you can give to the states. The state directors

can work with the State Employment Security Commissions on the

locations of the DVOP and the LVERs. States know very well

where those DVOP and LVERs should best be positioned. We

know, from experience, working with that state, what we would advise them to do.

In some cases where you have a rural area, or a sparsely populated area, and you have a DVOP who is not working full-time to
23

help disabled or special disabled veterans, then we ought to look

at a part-time DVOP.

Now, if we do that, we would like that part-time DVOP to be

working DVOP functions 100 percent of the time that he is working

part-time. Because otherwise, we are fearful that he is going to lose

his skill level. But that is another thing that we could do.

And we could also work with the states on outstationing of the

DVOPs and LVERs, because that may—the outstationing, for example, at the VA regional centers, that will help the state to improve its performance.

There are probably a number of other incentives, and I know as

the assistant secretary for VETS gets on board, we have already

identified this as an area that we want to look at very carefully,

and we want to work it out not only among ourselves, but we want

to get the states, the National Association of Workforce Agencies

involved in this so that, in effect, we are partnering with them, and

so it is a collaborative effort.

Mr. SIMPSON. If you have a DVOP that works part-time, you

want him working 100 percent of the time on those issues. Is it

possible, can a state currently pay the salary of that individual for

the other part-time—say they were working half-time and being

paid by the grant from the DVOP, could they be paid by the state

and work regular employment services in the state office the rest

of the time?

Mr. CICCOLELLA. They would have to be charged to another account. May I ask Stan Seidel to respond to that, sir?

Mr. SIMPSON. Sure.

Mr. SEIDEL. Currently, we have authority for half-time local veterans employment representatives, which is a similar concept with

half-time disabled veterans outreach program specialists. If a state

is hiring a half-time LVER, then half of the funds in that position,

half of it is funded by our grant, the other half is funded through

the employment and training side.

Currently, we do not have anything in the legislation or in our

policies that allow us to have half-time DVOPs. So that is a legislative issue that this body might want to look into.

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate it. My time has expired. Mr. Reyes.

Mr. REYES. It is only you and I, so we can——

Mr. SIMPSON. So we can take as long as we want, eh?

Mr. REYES. As long as we want. (Laughter.)

In that vein, Mr. Chairman, I am advised that we have Mr. Fred

Juarbe, the nominee for assistant secretary of labor for veterans

employment and training, who is here today. I think he is in the

front row, there. Welcome, and we look forward to——

(Applause.)

Mr. REYES (continuing). I hope to a speedy Senate confirmation,

and I look forward to working with you. Welcome this morning,

thank you for being here.

And I am also told that Mr. Ciccolella’s wife and daughter are

here. Is that correct?

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Yes, sir, they are.

Mr. REYES. Well, welcome to them, as well. This is—I have only

had—I have testified before Congress in another career many

times, and one time my wife and one of my daughters assisted. I
24

used to work for the border patrol, so that was a much more contentious testimony than I hope this experience is for you. But welcome, we are glad that you are all here.

I was going to ask my first question to Mr. Nilsen. The Department of Labor, among many others, is telling us that combining the

DVOP and the LVER, combining those funding streams would result in undesirable impact on service to the veterans. I am curious,

how do you respond to that observation?

Mr. NILSEN. Well, what we saw was, in practicality, how these

programs are operated at the local level. There is very little difference between what a DVOP does and what an LVER does.

While, if you look at title 38, it is clear that a DVOP is to focus

on disabled veterans, if there is not a DVOP in the office, the

LVER does it.

The training that each gets is very similar through the National

Veterans Training Institute.

The other responsibility that differs between them is that the

LVER has some supervisory responsibility. But beyond that, the

duties are the same.

The other issue is that by combining the grants, it gives the

states and local areas much more flexibility on where and how to

locate people. And that was the motivating factor behind us making that recommendation, that this would allow the states greater

flexibility on how to use these resources to serve veterans.

Mr. REYES. One of the concerns that I have is that when we are

talking about disabled veterans, they are normally, in most circumstances, a bigger challenge for the individual.

Human nature being what it is, if you have got a really challenging area to focus in on one side, you have got a much easier time

with another, and you can generate either more assistance or more

statistics, however you want to categorize it, human nature is that

you are going to do one over the other.

That is the concern that I have. When we are dealing with a veterans population, particularly a population that is, by virtue of the

definition, a disabled population, I think that is why it is inherently not just proper, but imperative that we do have specialists in

those areas to take care of those particular needs.

And in fact, when the chairman was asking the question, ‘‘Would

it be practical to have a disabled veteran program individual for

half-time, and then the other half picked up by the state for something else,’’ I would have the same kinds of concerns there as well.

Because, again, it is specifically focused on a segment of the veterans population that is difficult to serve, that has unique needs,

and you know, we have an obligation to provide that service.

Mr. NILSEN. Right.

Mr. REYES. And that is why I ask you that question.

Mr. NILSEN. It is a good point, Mr. Reyes, and I think it points

out the importance of what you measure, in terms of your performance measures. You do not want to drive a system, if you want to

provide intensive services, you do not want to have performance

measures that just count numbers and give people an incentive to

not spend the time that certain people may need, the intensive

time.
25

But I think the issue is if, for example, a local area —I have a

couple of points I would like to make—if a local area cannot support a DVOP, a full-time DVOP, then there are no services in that

area specialized for that disabled veteran.

That is why, I think, the added flexibility of either or both of our

suggestions regarding DVOP and LVER positions may help veterans. You know, our first suggestion was to allow half-time DVOPs,

the other is by combining, but making sure that the veteran specialists have the training they need to provide the intensive services, and then giving them the incentive.

I think the other issue here is making sure that you—the VETS

management—provide some guidance to the states and the localities to see how best to serve the veteran population in the area.

Some of the people that are easier to serve do not need the specialized services of the DVOP and the LVER.

They can be served by other people in the employment service office or the one-stop, and then saving those resources, those intensive resources, for those people, those veterans who come in who

really require the intensive resources. And provide the incentives

for them to do that, and measure that intensive service so that you

are not giving the kind of perverse incentive of not providing the

intensive services.

Like I said in my statement, case management is a priority, yet

it is not measured. And if you do not measure it, you are not going

to guarantee yourself that you are getting that kind of service.

Mr. REYES. The flip side to that is that in today’s marketplace,

veterans, like the rest of the population, tend to be very mobile.

And when—the concern, as it relates to veterans, specifically, is

that once a segment of the population is served by a non-DVOP or

LVER program, and it goes someplace else, there are two things

that are likely to happen.

Number one, you have to fight for those resources to come back

once the population is there again, or shows up, and so you have

to fight for those kinds of resources to be back, and the second

thing is that if you don’t get them, then you are forced to provide

services with people that have not been trained, that perhaps do

not understand the uniqueness of the needs of disabled veterans

and local veterans as much.

I am wondering, Mr. Ciccolella, do you have any views on this

particular issue?

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Yes, sir. We maintain that there was an original intent behind the DVOP and the LVER. Those individuals,

while the jobs may be similar in a lot of respects, there are very

clear distinctions between the roles that they play.

The LVER is a facilitator, he is a manager. He works with the

office manager. He makes sure that priority of service, however

that is defined, is applied to veterans when they come in. Some veterans, as Mr. Nilsen says, they need very little help. Others come

in and they are not IT-savvy, and they need resume writing and

they need to learn how to use a computer so they can go up on

America’s job bank, or they need the services of someone else,

maybe the WIA staff.

The DVOP needs different skills. That individual needs to understand how to assess someone, and how to work with someone, and
26

work through the barriers, or work through the barrier that is presented by that individual’s disability. And they need to stick with

those folks.

Mr. Nilsen is absolutely correct on the issue of the outcomes. We

need to figure out a way to weight the outcomes for highly casemanaged individuals, so that states get good credit, and that it encourages the DVOP to do that. Because if we are only looking at

numbers, then the DVOP is in a heck of a position. ‘‘What do you

want me to do? Do you want me to case manage, or do you want

me to give you numbers?’’ So, that is not what we want.

The analogy that I can think of, just off of the top of my head,

is like, in the information technology world you have a webmaster

and you have software developers. Now, can they both do each other’s job? Yes. But not entirely.

You know, a webmaster has certain responsibilities: to post that

web page; to keep it up to date; to make sure the policies are set

right. The software developer, you know, is into the details, he is

programming.

So, to answer your question, we do maintain that there are distinct roles. And the intent of those roles was very carefully thought

out in 1944 and 1977, when those positions were established. So,

that is really the best way I can respond to your question.

Mr. REYES. And thank you for that response. I also want to ask

you to reiterate. It is my understanding, based on your testimony,

that you feel very strongly that if DVOP or LVERs function on a

part-time, or would do half-time one program and then half-time to

the states for the general population, that, in itself, would be a detriment to the veterans and to those specific programs, either due

to lack of expertise, or focusing on other areas.

Did I understand you correctly in your testimony to be concerned

about that?

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Yes, sir. What I was trying to say was that if

you use a DVOP half-time, the half-time that he works should be

only disabled veterans outreach program activities. Now, and that

is what he does 100 percent of the time.

Our position would be that we would not advise that the duties

be blended, because when they are blended—in other words, help

the disabled veterans, but, ‘‘Oh, by the way, you need to go over

here and work these other issues’’—if that is the situation, over

time you are going to see a diminution of that DVOP’s skills and

less attention that he or she pays to those skills. So, if they are

going to use them half-time, I think our position is we would like

to see them 100 percent for that half-time.

Mr. REYES. And can you expand your observation that if, in fact,

there is a need for something less than a full-time, that your observation is that it should be a part-time versus a half-time so that,

again, the individual would focus specifically on veterans’ needs?

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Yes, sir.

Mr. REYES. Can you expand on that a little bit, just for the

record?

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Yes, sir. Let us take a case where you have the

DVOP operating in a rural area. And you have a limited population

of veterans with barriers, or disabled, or special disabled veterans.

Maybe you have them in two or three locations. It would make
27

sense that the state would have the flexibility to use the DVOP

for—on a half-time basis to serve those veterans in need.

Now, when they complete that, that is their part-time job. I am

not sure we want to comment on what that individual does for the

rest of the time, whether he works in that Employment Security

Commission local office or one-stop, or what he or she does. Our

concern is that when they are working as a DVOP, that is what

they are doing.

Mr. REYES. Very good. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you both.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you for that explanation, because that—as

you said, if they are working part-time, the time that they are

working as a DVOP, they ought to be doing that all of the time.

But the other time, if they are working at JCPenney’s or Burger

King, or at the Employment Agency, that probably would be okay,

as long as the time that is spent working as a DVOP is 100 percent

of the time that they are doing the DVOP work, right?

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Yes, sir. It would make sense that a state

would use a DVOP, based on its base requirement.

Mr. SIMPSON. Right.

Mr. CICCOLELLA. I think that would be the best way to answer

that.

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. We have one other question on behalf of

Chairman Smith. Mr. Seidel, thank you for participating in the

work session with representatives of the Workforce New Jersey.

In regard to the Department of Labor recapturing expended

funds for vacant DVOP and LVER positions each quarter, it was

my understanding that the DOL has changed its process to recapture funds every two quarters of the year, rather than every quarter. Is that correct?

Mr. SEIDEL. That is correct.

Mr. SIMPSON. Good. I thank the panel for their testimony today.

I look forward to working with you, and to make sure that we deliver the veterans services that I know that we all agree that they

deserve in the most efficient manner that we can. Thank you.

If panel three would come forward. Mr. Rex Hall is representing

the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. Mr. Roger

Madsen is director of the Idaho Department of Labor, and Mr. Terrence O’Mahoney is with the Texas Workforce Commission. When

you are ready, we will begin with Mr. Hall and work our way down

the table. Mr. Hall.

STATEMENTS OF REX HALL, CHAIRMAN, VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES; ROGER MADSEN, DIRECTOR, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; AND TERRENCE P. O’MAHONEY, COMMISSIONER REPRESENTING LABOR, TEXAS WORKFORCE

COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF REX HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Reyes, thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. I am assistant director of program

operations with the Missouri Department of Economic Development

Division of Workforce Development, and chairman of the National
28

Association of State Workforce Agencies, Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

NASWA is the national association and organization of state officials responsible for workforce security and workforce development

services. We administer the Nation’s employment service, the

DVOP and LVER programs, unemployment insurance laws, labor

market information programs, and in almost all states, job training

or workforce development programs. Our members are the lead officials in implementing the bipartisan Workforce Investment Act,

which Congress passed in August of 1998.

It is a pleasure to be asked to testify before you today. Over the

past 2 years, our organization has testified before this subcommittee, and staff from our national association has participated in the

numerous working sessions sponsored by this subcommittee. In addition, subcommittee staff have met with the National Veterans Affairs Committee to discuss various legislative and related program

issues.

The public funded workforce system has undergone a great deal

of change since the passage of the Workforce Investment Act. The

DVOP and LVER programs are delivered through employment

service, one-stop career centers that are codified under WIA. As the

GAO report states, title 38 ‘‘has not been updated to reflect the recent changes in the employment and training service system introduced by WIA.’’

We believe that it is now time to make changes to title 38, chapter 41, and the federal oversight of the DVOP and LVER programs.

The national veterans’ affairs committee met with the GAO officials and identified many of the findings in the report that face

states in the delivery of these programs. NASWA agrees with many

of the findings and recommendations in the GAO report.

I recently had the opportunity to meet with the new Bush administration officials that are responsible for these programs. These officials indicated a willingness to meet with the states and discuss

ideas states have to improve the DVOP and the LVER programs.

We are looking forward to working with the administration, Congress, this subcommittee, the full committee, and the veterans

service organizations in developing legislation to address the statutory needs, and we are anxious to begin working with the administration and addressing the policy-related and administrative grant

issues that can be updated and improved, immediately.

The GAO report’s major conclusion is that the prescriptive nature of title 38 creates a one-size-fits-all approach for service delivery. NASWA agrees with this conclusion. The GAO identified several revisions to title 38 that Congress should consider.

In particular, NASWA agrees that Congress should consider reviewing title 38 to: (1) provide states and local one-stops more discretion to decide where to locate DVOP and LVER staff, and provide states the discretion to utilize half-time DVOP positions; (2)

allow USDOL/VETS and states the flexibility to better define the

roles and responsibilities of staff serving veterans, instead of including these duties in the law; (3), provide USDOL/VETS with the

flexibility to consider alternate ways to improve the administration

and oversight of the staffing grants, for example, eliminating the

prescriptive requirements for monitoring DVOP and LVER grants;
29

(4) eliminate the requirement that USDOL/VETS report to Congress a comparison of job placement rate of veterans with that of

non-veterans; (5) eliminate the requirement that USDOL/VETS report on federal contracted job listings the FCJL lists; and lastly, (6)

the DVOP and LVER grant funding cycle consistent with that of

the other employment and training programs.

This past spring, USDOL/VETS published several new measures

for the veterans employment and training programs for public comment in the Federal Register. NASWA provided comments on these

proposed measures. We are very encouraged by the fact that this

is an improvement over the current performance accountability system because, for the most part, the measures focus more on what

programs achieve, and less on the numbers of service provided by

staff serving veterans.

The inconsistency of the DVOP and LVER grant funding cycle

with other employment and training programs has caused a great

deal of problems for states. Unlike most other labor programs

under the Workforce Investment Act which receive their funding on

a program-year cycle, July 1 to June 30, the DVOP and LVER programs are funded on a federal fiscal year cycle, October 1 to September 30. This has caused difficulties for states, especially in the

past years, with the delay in enactment of a final appropriations

bill.

The above problems could be largely avoided if DVOP and LVER

grants were awarded to states on a program year cycle, like most

other federally funded programs under the Workforce Investment

Act. In addition, provisions to allow for a 2-year carryover would

greatly assist states in managing this program.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman

and the ranking member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee

for writing to the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee

and the director of the Office of Management and Budget, asking

that the DVOP and LVER programs be switched to the program

year funding cycle. We are hopeful that this change will be proposed in the President’s Fiscal Year 2003 budget.

The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Labor establish

more effective management and monitoring for the DVOP and

LVER programs. In general, NASWA agrees with these recommendations. We agree with the GAO findings that the USDOL/

VETS federal monitoring effort, which includes on-site evaluations

at every local office is often unproductive and redundant with other

one-stop monitoring done by the states.

Moreover, this oversight results in confusion about the lines of

authority between the federal and the state monitoring staff and

the DVOP and LVER staff, who are state employees.

The time and effort that state workforce agencies spend on administering the DVOP and LVER grant is far greater in relative

terms than that of all other workforce programs. In particular,

USDOL/VETS has instituted a quarterly recapture process that

creates a great deal of problems for states and results in an inordinate amount of time spent on the grant process.

NASWA strongly recommends that USDOL/VETS eliminate this

quarterly recapture process and provide states with a full year’s

worth of funding with up to 2 years to spend carryover funds.
30

In summary, NASWA agrees with most of the findings and recommendations made in the General Accounting Office report. We

look forward to working with Congress, the subcommittee, the committee, the administration, and the veterans’ service organizations

in addressing these issues that are identified in the report, and believe that, in the end, the changes will result in improved services

to this Nation’s veterans.

That concludes my testimony, and I look forward to your

questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall appears on p. 114.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Mr. Madsen.

STATEMENT OF ROGER MADSEN

Mr. MADSEN. Mr. Chairman Simpson, and Ranking Member

Reyes. I bring greetings, Mr. Chairman, from our mutual friend,

Kent Phelps, from our Blackfoot Job Service office. You may be

aware that Kent recently received an American Legion national

award for his exceptional service to veterans.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak briefly about our programs for veterans, and the contributions veterans are making

across our state and Nation.

These veterans programs developed in the seventies and eighties,

met the needs of the Nation at a time we were bringing Vietnam

veterans home to an unwelcoming society. The world of work was

based on long-term employment, where an entry-level job was a

ticket to a career, and skills were good for much of a lifetime.

Today, the effective life span of a technical skill is frequently

only about 18 months, and in some fields, 5 years in a job is considered stagnation.

Today’s service members and veterans have the technical skills

and the work ethic needed to succeed in this world of work. What

we do not have is a career development program for these veterans

with the flexibility to respond to rapid economic changes, and the

demands of business.

We have reviewed the GAO report to the committee concerning

the Veterans Employment and Training Service, and agree with

many of their findings. We recommend, therefore, the following.

First, I join with many others in asking the Congress to fund the

Local Veterans Employment Representative and Disabled Veterans

Outreach Program grants at a more reasonable level, and on a program year, rather than fiscal year cycle.

As do colleague, I wish to express appreciation to the chairman,

Mr. Smith, and Member Evans, for their support of this proposal

to fund our programs on a program year, rather than a fiscal year

cycle.

Two, allow veterans representatives to be cross-trained and to

provide veterans a full range of services available in the one-stop.

One of our biggest challenges is integrating veterans services into

our one-stop environment.

The current restrictions regarding the types of services LVER

and DVOP staff can and cannot provide make it nearly impossible

for veterans staff to be fully integrated within the one-stop system,

although they very much want to be. This is not only a disservice

to our veterans staff, but is a disservice to the veteran customers.
31

While others may have their employment and unemployment insurance needs met by one individual, the veteran customer cannot.

From a customer perspective, this is hardly seamless service. From

an organizational perspective, this is not cost-effective.

The single most effective change to national policy that could be

made is to relieve these restrictions on the types of services that

an LVER or DVOP can provide for their veteran customers.

Number three, remove unnecessary restrictions, and allow states

greater discretion, flexibility, and accountability to design, administer, and operate veterans programs in the way most effective in

each state.

For example, allow the funding of partial DVOP and LVER positions, rather than requiring that DVOP positions be only full-time

positions, and LVER positions be no less than half-time. The increased flexibility in the use of veterans resources would allow a

small state, such as Idaho, to maximize return on investment, and

to maximize the customer service provided by limited LVER and

DVOP funds.

Four, simplify the myriad of definitions and categories of veterans to allow dedicated veterans staff to help anyone who has

served in the military, including that nearly one-half of the Nation’s fighting force in Reserve or National Guard units, as well as

those service members within one year of the completion of their

military obligation.

Five, fund the employment program for veterans similar to other

employment programs. With similar definitions for program and

administrative costs, under the current law, only the direct salary

and benefit costs of the front line staff are allowable as program

costs. All other expenses, including even the cost of maintaining

space for an LVER in a job service office, are considered administrative expenses.

Should the veterans grants assume the funding model of the

Workforce Investment Act, all costs associated with directly serving

the veterans would be program costs, and true administrative staff

and technical services costs would be overhead. This would simplify

reporting, and reduce reporting costs.

Six, task the U.S. Department of Labor with developing meaningful performance measures, and allow each grantee to propose a

service plan to address those measures, as they apply to the local

area.

Seven, eliminate the duplicative federal review of each service

delivery point. While we have a strong working relationship with

the VETS director in Idaho, her local office reviews rarely finds

issues our management staff were not already addressing.

These reviews are an unnecessary level of federal oversight that

last year consumed 24 weeks of her time, and resulted in one

minor finding.

Eight, the GAO report recommends combining the LVER and

DVOP grants into a single grant. While we see the administrative

advantages for this consolidation, we are concerned that the total

funding and the total number of veterans representatives available

may well be reduced under such a plan.
32

We would ask that if a single grant program is adopted, a financial guarantee be included so states can maintain the stability and

flexibility necessary to be effective.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, we in Idaho respect and appreciate

the sacrifice our veterans have made to defend our Nation.

At the Idaho Department of Labor, we have the skills, expertise,

community support, and dedication to help our veterans find their

place in the civilian economy. Your assistance and continued support will help America keep its promises to its veterans. Thank

you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Madsen appears on p. 118.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Madsen. Mr. O’Mahoney.

STATEMENT OF TERRENCE P. O’MAHONEY

Mr. O’MAHONEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Reyes. My

name is Terry O’Mahoney, I am the Commissioner Representing

Labor at the Texas Workforce Commission, the agency responsible

for workforce employment and training in Texas. I have submitted

my testimony to the committee, for the record.

I am pleased and honored to be with you today to address the

General Accounting Office’s report on the Veterans’ Employment

and Training Services.

As a former United States Marine Corps major and naval aviator, I admire and respect the sacrifices that members of our

armed forces everywhere have made in serving our country. And

we all owe these individuals a debt of gratitude. Insuring that veterans’ needs are addressed is an essential element in honoring that

debt, and I commend the committee for continuing its efforts towards that end.

Through the leadership of then-Governor George W. Bush and

the Texas legislature, Texas began reforming the state’s workforce

system in 1995. The system later was used as a model for the national workforce reform through the Workforce Investment Act of

1998, the cornerstone of which is local control and flexibility.

Texas has 28 local workforce development boards, and over 142

workforce centers, which, along with the agency, comprise the

Texas workforce network. Each of these local boards is required by

state law to have at least one veteran as a member. The local

boards ensure the delivery of service through integrated one-stop

centers. For the one-stop center, flexibility is a key to meeting the

needs of local employers, job seekers, and the community.

Unfortunately, the federally funded disabled veterans outreach

program and the local veterans employment representative program provided through the U.S. Department of Labor, Veterans

Employment and Training Services, are rigid and prescriptive.

These programs lack the flexibility necessary to meet the demand

of today’s integrated workforce initiatives.

I applaud the GAO study, and believe the conclusions and recommendations contained therein are valid and worthy of support.

From the study and from our experience, the basic foundation of

today’s workforce structure is a locally-controlled, integrated workforce system that is envisioned in the Workforce Investment Act.

To be effective and efficient in serving our customers, efforts

must be taken to align other federal programs providing similar
33

services toward the WIA model. Now, to facilitate this move, Congress should consider the following six items.

The GAO states, ‘‘Provide states and local one-stops more discretion to decide where to locate DVOP and LVER staff and provide

states the discretion to have half-time DVOP positions.’’

In short, let the operator decide how to task organize its resources to meet the local situation. As all of us who are veterans

know, the front line is where the action is. The local people are in

the best position to assess what is needed, and how to get it done.

The GAO recommends, ‘‘Allow VETS and/or states the flexibility

to better define the roles and responsibilities of staff serving veterans, instead of including these duties in the law.’’

Now, I believe that roles and responsibilities for the DVOP/LVER

positions should not be enumerated in the law. Inclusion of these

items in statutes severely restricts those who manage the grant

and those that deliver the services. Let us, instead, give the local

level the flexibility to meet the day-to-day service demands.

Number three, the GAO recommends combining the DVOP and

LVER grant programs in the one staffing grant to better meet

states’ needs for serving veterans. As it stands now, a state could

be overspent in one program—say, DVOP—and then underspent in

LVER. Because the two funding streams are categorical, and cannot be commingled, funds from one cannot be used to offset the cost

in another.

A single funding source would enable more flexibility in staff positions, offer better upward mobility for staff, and enhance the total

operations by allowing more funds to directly reach the point of

services without regard to category.

Alternatively, this same objective could be accomplished if states

were allowed to expand funds on either staff category as the overall

situation dictates.

Number four, the GAO recommends, ‘‘Provide VETS with the

flexibility to consider alternative ways to improve administration

and oversight of the staffing grants. For example, eliminating the

prescriptive requirements for the monitoring of DVOP and LVER

grants.’’

In other programs available in the one-stop, which most times

are vastly larger than the DVOP and LVER grants, the state performs the monitoring role, and our federal partners provide technical assistance to the state.

Another grant area that I am concerned with is the DOL/VETS

staff in the state. I believe the grant for this program and other

state-administered services should be used to support state staff

and their associated costs in the one-stop centers, and not pay for

the administrative cost to federal employees.

Number five, the GAO recommends make the DVOP/LVER grant

funding cycle consistent with the other employment and training

programs.

I notice you are already working on this, and I wanted to thank

the chairman and ranking member of this committee for writing

the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and the Office of Management and Budget. Thank you for your efforts in this

matter.
34

The sixth and last point that the GAO makes, is eliminate the

requirements that VETS report on the federal contract job listings.

Other recent GAO studies have also supported this stance.

From a state perspective, there is little role for us in this area.

A federal entity contracts with a business for goods and services.

The contract identity must file with DOL/VETS an annual

VETS100 report, detailing the number of veterans in the workforce.

And another Federal agency, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, is charged with monitoring the contractors.

It would seem sufficient mechanisms are already in place at the

federal level to satisfy any information needs relating to the federal

contractors without requiring states to track the quantity of their

job listings.

To further move toward DVOP/LVER program improvement, several items in the GAO study were recommended for executive action, and I support these recommendations, but ask you to refer to

my written testimony for any details.

This concludes my comments on the specific recommendations

contained in the GAO study. I would like to take this opportunity

to extend my appreciation to the National Association of State

Workforce Agencies, and its veterans affairs committee for its

outstanding effort in working with the House Veterans’ Affairs

Committee, DOL/VETS, the veterans organization, and the states

themselves.

And I will be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Mahoney appears on p. 123.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. O’Mahoney. I would tell this panel

that Mr. Reyes and myself will be asking for a meeting with Mitch

Daniels, from OMB, to discuss the program year issue that you

have brought up. That seems like it should be a relatively simple

thing to correct, if everybody is on board with that.

You all mentioned the two grants, the possibility of making them

one grant, or the transfer of funds between grants, or the inability

to transfer funds between the different grants. Would you have a

preference of allowing transfer of funds just between the two

grants, or making them one grant?

I know that some people are concerned, as Mr. Madsen said in

his testimony, that the concern might be that overall funding for

those grants would then decrease if you combined them into one

grant; that there ought to be some way of ensuring that we maintain staffing levels for both those programs if you made them one

grant.

Mr. O’MAHONEY. I don’t have that concern. I think that what we

are looking for is flexibility. We have done very well with the block

grants.

In fact, I think your first question was if we had to start all over

again, what would we do, and my recommendation would be, integrate veterans’ services using the Workforce Investment Act and

our workforce boards as the lynch pin for economic development

and job placement in the State of Texas. Incidentally, when it

comes to veterans, we are in the top five percentile, and we have

placed over 56,000 veterans in jobs, which is 11 percent of the national total.
35

I would recommend that we block grant the funds to our agency,

the Texas Workforce Commission, and from then we would put

them out to the 28 workforce boards.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, from the committee that I represent,

there is not a consensus on that issue. We are still in conversation.

From Missouri’s perspective, I, as the program operations assistant

director, would be more interested in having the flexibility between

the two programs.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Madsen.

Mr. MADSEN. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned in my testimony that

it will be helpful if there is a financial guarantee. I realize that is

difficult, to guarantee anything under the current budget system.

But we have been working in the last several years under basically

increasing demands and reduced levels of funding, or at least funding that have not kept up with the cost of living increases. So, we

have had to subsidize these programs, and that has been very

harmful.

And the recapture of the granting and the recapture process is

also very difficult. Dealing with that on a quarterly basis is, in my

opinion, not acceptable business practice.

Mr. SIMPSON. Now, Mr. Hall, you mentioned on the recapture,

that you would rather have that—be able to retain those funds for

a 2-year cycle. Did I understand that right?

Mr. HALL. What the committee has talked about, Mr. Chairman,

is that much like the Wagner-Pizer grant, where we have the appropriation given in a given year, and any funds that are left over

at the end of the year still have a 2-year authority for expenditure,

we feel that such a measure as that with the veterans program

would give the states a great deal of flexibility to better manage

their program.

Of course, this would require full funding up front, and we would

have to work with the committee as well as our USDOL counterparts to see how this would play out.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Madsen, the testimony of The American Legion defends at great length many of the current restrictions on

states which you and your colleagues here advocate be removed.

How would you respond to their defense of the status quo?

Mr. MADSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for The American Legion position on this issue. I respectfully disagree. We, at

the state level, who work with this on a daily basis in 24 local offices, find that the program is very restrictive.

For instance, each LVER and DVOP—in our state, at least—

must report to the local office manager. I think that is an inappropriate federal requirement. And I think that not permitting, or not

allowing an adequate cross-training function for these folks restricts their ability to serve veterans on a daily basis, and I think

it limits their ability to integrate themselves into the one-stop operating system.

So, as much as I respect The American Legion’s opinion on this,

I think they are wrong.

Mr. SIMPSON. You heard our discussion with the last panel for

allowing the DVOP individual, in those places that might require

one to work part-time in that capacity, and then maybe part-time
36

in other capacities within the state department, or something along

those lines.

Do you think that that would hinder their ability to focus on veterans issues when they were working as the DVOP individual?

Mr. MADSEN. On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, I think that would

enhance their ability to work with all of their customers, and we

would never—at least in Idaho—want to see their commitment to

veterans, employees, and customers lessened—prospective employees, that is.

We support that idea tremendously in our state, and I am sure

the other states do, as well. But they need to be integrated into the

one-stop career center environment to be able to provide much

more services to their customers than what is limited by law.

Mr. SIMPSON. Is that the same——

Mr. HALL. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that we

have noted in Missouri, and I have listened to around the table of

the committee meetings that I have attended for the national veterans affairs committee is exactly that point, that under WIA, the responsibility to design the delivery system is not a cookie-cutter approach.

So, in rural America, where there is not necessarily a population

sufficient to warrant a full-time DVOP, those services are not

present. We see this as a mechanism that, while not every region

in the United States will need a part-time DVOP, there are regions

that could utilize one and maximize the benefits to its veterans

population.

Mr. O’MAHONEY. I would generally agree. I think that what we

are really looking for is flexibility, and I think that what you would

see would be that somebody that is working in one of our one-stops

would have a split duty, working with regular customers half a

day, and then devoting to DVOP. And I do not see any way that

there would be any reduction in any kind of service or dedication.

Mr. SIMPSON. Just one last question. When we talk about flexibility, I think some of the concerns of some people who may have opposition to this type of flexibility is accountability.

Can we put in place adequate accountability and measurable

standards to make sure that those veterans are being treated, and

not being, in the name of flexibility, ignored, or——

Mr. O’MAHONEY. I would just like——

Mr. SIMPSON (continuing). To a lesser extent, ignored?

Mr. O’MAHONEY. If I may, I would just like to give you some of

the statistics in Texas. As I said, we placed over 56,000 veterans

into jobs. That is 45.8 percent.

And in particular, when we take a look at our disabled veterans,

we had 7,000 that received services, 5,000 were referred to jobs,

and we have 3,490—53 percent of our total intake of disabled veterans—are put in jobs.

So, I think the dedication which we have in Texas is—we have

very high standards. And quite frankly, until we place every veteran in a job, I do not think we are really doing what we are supposed to do.

Mr. MADSEN. Mr. Chairman, under the current system, occasionally we seem to work for the numbers, rather than working strictly
37

to help the customer. And I think accountability, in our state at

least, would not bother us at all.

We support accountability measures and performance measures,

and we would work closely with you and the USDOL to ensure that

our customers receive the full services that they need.

Mr. HALL. And I can echo those comments from the committee.

We are more than willing to come to the table and work on this

issue because we, like you, are most interested in ensuring that we

have a quality performance.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Reyes.

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to certainly

commend Mr. Hall for the professionalism and the expertise that

your organization brings to the table year after year, and in particular, I want to single out your acting executive director, Katie

Cashen, who I know is here, for her outstanding work in your organization and support to this committee on both sides. So we appreciate that very much.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Reyes.

Mr. REYES. In that vein, can you explain to me how a hold-harmless provision for small states would actually be structured, in the

context of recapturing the funds and minimum staffing, in a little

more detail? I know the chairman covered a little bit of that.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Reyes, one of the concerns that the small states

have with the possibility that we are going to go to a different

funding mechanism for these programs is the fact that part of their

life blood has been the recaptured funds.

What we are wanting to do with this provision is to ensure that

we do not cut off one part of the body to benefit another part of

the body. So what we are needing to do—and this will take a great

amount of discussion, we are a long way from having a plan to the

degree that I think that you would like today—but what we are

trying to do is to ensure that we are able to better manage the resource, both the fiscal resource and the human resource, in a way

that the large states, the mid-size states, and those small states

are not harmed, and that the bottom line is that the veterans population continues to have high-quality services, both from the disabled veteran and the veterans, as a whole unit, perspective.

Mr. REYES. You heard my comments earlier, in terms of the mobility of the veteran population as well, and that is why I was curious to get more information on this particular issue from your perspective, because that is one of the biggest challenges that, since

being a member of this committee, we have had to deal with, in

terms of having the infrastructure in one part of the country, and

having the veterans in another part of the country, and then again,

being in competition for resources that are perhaps no longer needed, but vitally important to that part or that region of the country,

and not being able to get them, where the actual work load is.

That is one of the biggest concerns that I think we face as a committee, to provide that kind of leadership. And I am wondering if

you agree with that, or you have some other thoughts.

Mr. HALL. Absolutely, sir. We find not only with the veterans

programs, but with all workforce programs, that the mobility issue

and the funding issues that we face all are being hampered by both

interactions.
38

There is another side of this story of recapture that we also need

to look at as we go into a funding year stream, as you well know,

running from October to September, sometimes states do not get

their funding until second quarter of that year. Due to hiring

freezes implemented by governors in states, states cannot fill up

and staff to their appropriated levels.

And what you end up having happen is states have to have layoffs, therefore taking away resources from people that need those

resources in those states, those funds are recaptured and moved.

So there are two sides to the recapturing issue.

Mr. REYES. Right.

Mr. HALL. And the mobility issue. Sometimes you rob Peter to

pay Paul, and consequences on both sides of the equation are

detrimental.

Mr. REYES. Thank you. Switching to the issue of block grants

with my good friend from Texas, you know, block grants do not always work. I can give you a number of examples, but I will just

give you one from—since we are both Texans—and that involves

the disparity in the funding formulas in Texas for medical services.

As you probably know, along the border, for instance, a child born on the border, the doctor gets reimbursed at $300. If that

same child is born in Houston, that figure is $580, if it is in Dallas,

it is $640 for the same type of service.

Well, that is why I think it is important to keep two things in

perspective as we talk about giving the maximum amount of flexibility at the local level, and giving the states the ability to do local

control.

And that is, first of all, I think, Mr. Chairman, as a committee,

we need to understand that protecting veterans benefits has to be

a national program, a national-scope, controlled at the federal

level.

Secondly, there has got to be some built-in accountability so that

if, in fact, we give flexibility—which I hope we do not, based on the

Texas experience—but if we have that flexibility, then there has

got to be some kind of accountability, because of the fluid nature

of the movement of veterans, because of the ability to intermesh

programs that service a difficult population of veterans versus a

less difficult one.

And then you throw into that mix the ability of having a halftime and half-time. And in a world where you are wanting to make

sure you protect your funding stream, and that everybody wants to

look good, you provide, inadvertently, a system that, perhaps

human nature being what it is, gives service to those that are easier to service, rather than those that are in most need.

And you know, I could not agree more with the intent of this

panel and everyone that we have heard this morning, and all of us

here, that we are all interested in making sure that the veterans

get the service. They put their life on the line for this country, and

we owe them the ability, through a national priority program, to

transition them from military to a civilian job.

So, I hope we do not get lost in the shuffle again. I appreciate

everybody’s perspective and their viewpoints, I just hope we understand not just the complexity, but the direction that veterans expect us to give to the states and to these programs.
39

So, I do not have a question, I just wanted to have an opportunity to express those observations.

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I thank you, Mr. Reyes. I agree with you.

Just like the term ‘‘freedom’’ requires responsibilities, flexibility

also implies that there is certain accountability, and that is why I

asked the question that if we determine that more flexibility is necessary out there, we have to be sure that those goals that are still

national goals are being met by that increased flexibility. That is

why we have to put in place, I think, those accountability measures

which these gentlemen seem to recognize.

I appreciate the panel for your testimony, and being here in

Washington today. Thank you very much.

And we will now have the fourth panel.

On this panel, we will hear from Mr. Steve Robertson of The

American Legion, Mr. James Magill, of the Veterans of Foreign

Wars, Mr. Rick Weidman, of the Vietnam Veterans of America, and

Mr. Calvin Gross, chairman of the Employment, Training, and

Business Opportunities Committee of the VVA National Board of

Directors.

Steve, we will begin with you.

STATEMENTS OF STEVE ROBERTSON, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE AMERICAN LEGION; JAMES N. MAGILL, DIRECTOR

OF EMPLOYMENT POLICY, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF

THE UNITED STATES; RICK WEIDMAN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA;

AND CALVIN GROSS, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT,

TRAINING, AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES COMMITTEE,

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

STATEMENT OF STEVE ROBERTSON

Mr. ROBERTSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The American Legion deeply appreciates the opportunity to testify today before your

subcommittee. As a former DVOP, I would like permission to unscrew the light bulb so that I can talk in great length about things

that I have heard today. My tongue is bleeding from where I have

been biting my tongue.

It seems that a lot of folks have forgotten why VETS came

around to begin with. VETS was created because the states were

not doing the job, and veterans were not being properly served.

From a pure analytical business perspective, this GAO report on

VETS is outstanding. However, VETS is not a business, but rather

a public service to America’s veterans. VETS should be viewed

from a philosophical perspective instead.

VETS is not a headhunting firm. Therefore, some of the recommendations by GAO would be counterproductive to the veterans

VETS was designed to serve.

I find it ironic, all of the changes that are being recommended

after an evaluation has been conducted on a program that has

never been fully funded. A lot of the laws that are in place in title

38 are not being complied with, especially when you talk about

manning.

The American Legion believes that to compromise qualitative objectives purely for quantitative goals lacks vision. The vast majority
40

of Americans still consider the local job service office as the unemployment office, a place you visit when it’s time to apply for unemployment benefits. Likewise, many employers still look to headhunting firms and private job placement companies to recruit their

future employees.

Local Employment Security offices do not provide an end product, but rather a series of services. The quality of these services

may very well impact on the employability of its customers. The

vast majority of job-ready applicants, including veterans, will never

step foot into a local job service office.

For those experienced job hunters that understand the networking process and will seek employment without assistance, fortunately TAPS was created to try to reach that goal to where local

veterans employment representatives and DVOPs would participate with active duty military people to help them find a job before

they ever left the military, and to give them the job-hunting skills

necessary to find meaningful employment.

Secondly, as a DVOP, one of my goals was to eliminate retreads.

In other words, once somebody went through my services, I wanted

to give them every tool that they needed, that they would never

have to walk into a job service office again. And that was a goal

that I pursued emphatically.

Looking at the two distinctive roles of a DVOP and an LVER,

each plays a vital part. The DVOP is designed to assist the hardto-place veteran. Commonly, these veterans include the service-connected disabled—which I would disagree with you, Congressman, I

think that because the Americans with Disability Act and with the

Voc Rehab, the disabled veterans are not your toughest clients. The

ones that are the hardest to employ are the recovering drug addicts, the recovering alcoholics, the convicted felons, the homeless

veterans, and others with significant barriers. Normally, these veterans require dedicated casework, vocational counseling, job training, and job search training. These hard-to-place veterans have

faced rejection so often that they have given up on ever obtaining

meaningful employment.

That attitude further complicates the job of a DVOP or an LVER.

The DVOP is tasked with finding veterans and bringing them back

into the system, to restore their confidence, and to help them become employable. That is why the outreach element of the DVOP

program job description is so critical.

The DVOP needs the opportunity to have face-to-face meetings

with employers to sell them on the idea of giving these veterans,

the hard-to-place veterans, a second chance. The outreach element

also enables DVOPs to establish a networking within the local veterans community.

When the job is done properly, you find these veterans that have

walked away from society coming back into the organization, into

the workforce. You also find employers coming back and saying,

‘‘Hey, here are some job opportunities that I have, and hopefully

we can place veterans in.’’

Often, the local job service office manager, who the DVOP and

LVER report to, is the one that governs the degree of outreach that

can be done in that office. And I was kind of perplexed by the comment that DVOPs and LVERs have to report to the job service of-
41

fice manager. If the law changed, who would they be reporting to?

I would submit probably the local job service office manager.

The LVER is different of that of the DVOP. The LVER should

be the chief sales representative of the VETS program in the business community and the local job service office. The LVER outreach role is much greater than the DVOP. The LVER should be

attending meetings with business hiring personnel, convincing

them that veterans make good hiring decisions. The LVER should

be in contact with federal contractors early in the process, so that

they can assist in putting qualified veterans in those positions.

I can tell you, for a fact, that most of the federal job service listings that we got in our office were after-the-fact. All the employees

had been hired, and we just went through the formality. And no

compliance group is going to argue, ‘‘Did you send the paperwork?’’

‘‘Well, when did you send it in?’’ Nobody is going to question that,

and nobody is going to be out there advocating for veterans, other

than DVOPs and LVERs.

Finally, the LVER’s casework load should be minimal. That is

what the DVOP is for, is to take care of those. One of the things

that I would urge you to seriously look at before any changes are

made—and The American Legion agrees that there are some

changes that should be made.

But you have to look at the impact that the small states are

going to have when decisions are made. A lot of times they are

made for big states. If we made decisions for DVOPs and LVERs

based on what is good for Texas, Idaho would probably have the

repercussions of it, because there is only so much money in the pot,

and somebody is going to get shortchanged.

One of the greatest tragedies in the DVOP and LVER program

is the limited training opportunities, the funds to where I can take

a veteran and put him in a program that is strictly for veterans.

We used to have one called VJTA, and these were programs that

were focused for veterans. The idea was getting them into a job,

and to be able to subsidize them while they were going through

their training. We used to have tax credits that we could offer to

employers to try to get them to take on these people, but that has

been limited.

And also, compliance with veterans’ preference. I would hate to

tell you how many letters we get at The American Legion from a

veteran who was denied an opportunity for employment with the

Federal Government or the State government, and was not hired

and his appeal process was a moot issue.

The American Legion strongly encourages this subcommittee

that before any dramatic changes are made in the job descriptions

of LVERs and DVOPs, that serious consideration be given to what

they are tasked to do, and what they are actually allowed to do.

The one-stop centers may be excellent concepts for job-ready applicants, but integrating VETS into the concept of—and this is the

original congressional intent of VETS—The American Legion believes integrating VETS into the one-stop centers would re-create

a problem that VETS was created to solve.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. We look forward to working with you on any changes to title

38 dealing with these programs.
42

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson appears on p. 131.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Robertson. Mr. Magill.

STATEMENT OF JAMES N. MAGILL

Mr. MAGILL. Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to express the

views with respect to VETS.

As a VFW travels around the country, and actually the world,

visiting military bases, one of the most frequently expressed concerns is, ‘‘Will I be able to find a job?’’

We are also being asked this question from the veterans who

work for companies that are downsizing and also we are beginning

to get more and more concerns from veterans who have retired and

now find that their income makes it that they have to go and look

for another job.

We believe that veterans have earned and deserve their own

dedicated program. We believe they have that program right now.

And while some people say it is broken, we do not agree with that,

but we do believe that it needs and should be repaired.

We agree with the report that VETS needs to be held accountable. This is the cornerstone in making this system work. There

needs to be a set of measurements that must be established and

they need to be enforced. And to do that, we believe VETS must

have the tools, in order to accomplish this.

Last Congress, we met several times in this room with your staff

and we worked to come up with a set of measurements and standards and those ways that VETS can improve. I would hope and encourage that we continue those talks, and next year, possibly come

up with a bill that will allow VETS to do its job.

This concludes my statement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Magill appears on p. 139.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Magill. Mr. Weidman.

STATEMENT OF RICK WEIDMAN

Mr. WEIDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for allowing Vietnam Veterans of America to join you this morning to

present our views.

The Vietnam Veterans approaches the issue of all veterans benefits and services from the point of view of the whole veteran. We

literally spend billions upon billions of dollars to help veterans get

physiologically, you know, psychiatrically, and otherwise well, only

to get folks dressed up and no place to go.

You talk to any of the VA folks in your state at the VA medical

center, or right here in Washington, DC, or at the VETS centers,

and they will tell you that generally, there is not much of a relationship at all, if any, with the local job service.

So, the original intent of all of this is to fulfill that key last step

in the rehabilitative process. Because if you don’t do that, and you

have spent an enormous amount of resources and time and energy

helping that homeless veteran get to the point where he or she is

ready to go to work and you cannot find a job, they will be back

on the street—and sustain a job, not just obtain a job, but sustain

a job—he or she will be back on the street in 6 months, and this

time it is going to be much harder to get them back in.
43

The same is true of disabled veterans. Profoundly disabled veterans are mostly out of the job market—meaning 60 percent or more,

Mr. Chairman—not because they do not want to work, but because

they are discouraged workers. And they just simply have given up

finding something in any job market, even a booming job market.

So, we proceed from that point that it is too important a function

not to work, not to work in coordination with all of the myriad of

other services, both federal and, to some degree, state and private

that are devoted to helping veterans live the fullest possible lives,

where they have been lessened by virtue of military service.

Now, the original intent Mr. Robertson eloquently touched on

about why there was a veterans employment and training service

and the federal monitoring, but also let’s think about the programs

themselves.

LVER program was put in in 1944 because there were problems,

they wanted to make sure the job service offices were responding

to the veterans who were starting to come home, and that veterans

priority was for real. And it was only because it was a problem that

that special program was created.

DVOP program was created in the late seventies, when the state

employment securities agencies testified that the only reason why

they weren’t placing Vietnam vets, and particular disabled vets,

was they could not find them. And many of us were very perplexed

with that, because veterans are very good about passing the word.

Veterans will go where they believe they are going to really find

help. So, that is why the DVOP, disabled veteran outreach program, was created, in order to fulfill that need.

We come, now, to today, and it is—there are a couple of assumptions in the GAO report that, frankly, are very troubling. We do

agree very strenuously and very whole-heartedly with the need for

sanctions, rewards, and some kind of variegation for good performance and sanctions for bad performance.

But the whole report makes an assumption that the one-stop

centers are working well for everybody. We would challenge that.

There is absolutely no empirical data that would support that notion. If you ask the folks who created the one-stop centers what

business they are in, they will not tell you job placement. They will

tell you they are in the information-sharing business.

Now, you try to measure that little sucker. They can tell you how

many hits they have in their various little devices, but they cannot

tell you how many people got a job.

Then they want to go the next step and use the wage records six

quarters down the line, that if somebody finds a job—maybe not

through their fault at all, or through their help at all—that they

would be able to count that as a positive termination. That is a

classic example of the fallacy, if I may suggest, Mr. Chairman, and

simply not intellectually, or otherwise, honest.

The real problem also, beyond that, is that which Mr. Robertson

touched upon, which is DVOPs and LVERs are now not often allowed—allowed—to do their job.

In my experience in 9 years as a state veterans program administrator in the State of New York which, at that time, was the second largest program in the State, I met a lot of DVOPs, not just

from New York, but from all over the country.
44

And every one of those folks I talked to told me the same thing,

is that the majority of veterans who are service-connected-disabled,

and particularly the most profoundly disabled veterans, they do not

get a job off the job listing, they are the ones who have the ability

to go out and develop the job around that individual veteran. That

works.

But it does not work if you are chained to your desk in the office

doing clerical work, doing all kinds of other things, which happens

a great deal, which is why VETS was brought into the picture, to

monitor what were declared to be illegal activities.

The real question here is how do we get beyond where we are

now. Frankly, I think what you are hearing reflected in all the veterans service organizations here today and their distinguished colleagues in the other VSOs is a distinct lack of trust.

When people from the workforce development agencies say,

‘‘Trust us, we have always had the best interests of veterans at

heart,’’ there is not a lot of empirical data or, more importantly, experience that would necessarily support that. I do not say that people are out to do things badly, and certainly not the gentleman

here today, but I just want to say that it has not necessarily been

a good track record.

It is useful to remember that, in regard to training monies to

help veterans adjust, that there are billions upon billions that are

out there under the WIA system today. None of it gets devoted towards VETS. Yet, the title 4-C, which is, bluntly, chump change—

chump change—and, what is it, two-tenths of one percent goes to

veterans, and they will tell you when they are allocating those

training dollars, ‘‘Veterans already have those, this is for everybody

else.’’

But veterans are 15 percent of the population, Mr. Chairman,

and where they are lessened, they are lessened, by and large, by

virtue of military service. The same people who control that—first

it was Office of Economic Opportunity, there was Manpower Development Training Agency, then it was Comprehensive Employment

and Training Program, or CETA, then it became JTFA, Job Training Partnership Act, and now it has become WIA.

But it is the same people in charge, the same people in charge

who, frankly, today have billions that they cannot figure out that

float around in the system. Not in this dollars, but in last year’s

dollars, that they will tell you that they are broke. Well, they are

not broke, because they have not yet figured out how to spend

those dollars, and they only know one thing, that they are darn

sure not devoted to veteran-specific programs, and that is the problem that we have in building that trust level.

Where do we go from here? We will continue to work with you,

Mr. Chairman, with your very hardworking staff, who in this committee has shown enormous leadership for taking on a real tough—

there have to be changes in the system because it is not working

today, and it is going to continue to diminish in its effectiveness

if we do not change and focus on how can we make this relevant

to the lives of veterans, not necessarily strengthen the workforce

development agencies, because maybe that is not the way to go.
45

We are not saying what it is, or it is not. But we know that the

function for veterans is so key that we have to keep persevering in

this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you. And if I may, I would turn it over

to my little brother from New Jersey. You have heard of the little

brother from Sicily. Well, this is my little brother from New Jersey,

Mr. Calvin Gross.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Weidman. Mr. Gross.

STATEMENT OF CALVIN GROSS

Mr. GROSS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I am from New

Jersey. And when things work well there, we are a veterans preference State. We have worked hard with Governor Whitman when

she was there.

One of the things that we were able to do is get her attention.

We showed up at her mansion, and she tried to start talking to us.

And one of the things we were able to bring to bear to her was

more than anecdotal results in the State. We were able to chapter,

verse—and she said, ‘‘Look.’’ She did look. And there she made the

corrections.

And I am here to say that I have met people who have said to

me, ‘‘Oh, I am working here temporarily. I lost my job because I

had to give it up to veterans preference.’’ It works. And the person

who I was talking to, I said, ‘‘What type of assistance are you getting?’’ He said, ‘‘Oh, I am fine with it. It was okay that the person

got the veterans preference.’’

Sometimes top-down leadership works. Top-down management

does not always work, but in this case it did work, because it was

the attitude of the executive officer that made it work.

But I have too much testimony—this is my third time sitting at

this table talking to a different person in your chair.

One of the things that—my question as I am just—this is my

seventh year being a chairman of employment and training, and

business opportunities—what I decided to do after my first 2 years

is to look into what are veterans being asked to do, and what are

they being shown to do. And none of them are preparing them for

what the workforce today—because what workforce is there? What

are you going to prepare them to do?

I, as a downsized veteran, I started analyzing my own data. I

started my own company and offered services where there was a

niche. I have been, for Vietnam Veterans of America, worked with,

on my own, with Department of Labor and SBA.

And I am afraid to give the rest, because I am ready to kick in

the doors of Congress, because these are the three government entities that need to collaborate to make the world a more receptive

place for the veterans I know, and the veterans that were deployed

in the field today.

Because TAP is a great concept, and it takes, once again, a perceptive leader and a creative leader to take the troops and put

them through TAP properly, or you get the other guy who will say,

you get, in 30 days, ‘‘Go ahead, go to TAP.’’ And 30 days is nothing.

So, I will tell you some things you already know. Disabled vets

require time to develop trust to work with either the LVER or the
46

DVOP. Their life experience tells them they cannot trust anyone,

other than the nurse who took care of them.

And today’s problems come from yesterday’s solutions. The GAO

report, which I read extensively, I have listened to my comrades

from the American Legion and from the VFW, they are on point.

What I am saying is we need to take a fresh new look, because you

can pass all the laws you want, you can—I have ready everything

that there is to read in this subject matter.

I sat on a secretary’s advisory board at the Department of Labor,

I know half the people in this room personally. The issue is the

world has changed. America has changed. What are these people

who are giving our dollars prepared to present to the veterans who

come through the door?

And I submit to you that they are not ready for prime time, they

are not ready for the workforce of the day. The workforce of the day

is looking for the individual who could offer them a service because

they downsized everything out. They are looking for the accountant, they are looking for the IT person, they are looking for the

people who could bring their services to them, and they could be

hired.

And that is the direction I have taken Vietnam Veterans of

America. We have developed tools, but that is just for the people

who are our members, or who touch our membership. The world is

much bigger than that, when it comes to veterans.

I can go on, but all I am saying to you is the design is not meant

to fit 2001. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weidman and Mr. Gross appears

on p. 141.]

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank you, and I thank all of you for your testimony on this subject. Let me assure you that what this subcommittee wants and what the full committee wants is to make sure that

those programs that we deliver to our veterans are the best programs that we can develop and that veterans receive the services

they deserve.

Someone said that veterans deserve their own program. I do not

disagree with that, which is why we have veterans preference for

employment, and those types of things. We need to make sure, and

work to make sure, that while those things are maintained, that

we are, in fact, developing a program that works as well as it can

work.

And as I read through this report, I guess one of the things that

kind of got me started on this was—and let me assure you that the

reason that there have been three members sitting in this chair

while you have spent your 7 years there is because we have those

irritating little things called elections that come up. (Laughter.)

Sometimes these individuals change. But look at this: Veterans’

Employment and Training Service, Focusing on Program Results to

Improve Agency Performance, May 7, 1997; Veterans’ Employment

and Training Service, Strategic and Performance Plans Lack Vision

and Clarity, June 28, 1999; Veterans’ Employment and Training

Service, Better Planning Needed to Address Future Needs, September 27, 2000; Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, Proposed Performance Measurement System Improved, But Further

Changes Needed, May 15, 2001; Veterans’ Employment and Train-
47

ing Service, Further Changes Needed to Strengthen its Performance Measurement System, June 7, 2001. And now we have Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, Flexibility and Accountability Needed to Improve Services to Veterans.

It seems like we have an awful lot of data that indicates that 70

percent of the veterans that go through the VETS program itself

are not receiving jobs, and that we need to improve that. I mean,

that is unacceptable.

We need to improve that, and whether we disagree or agree on

any specific way to do it, as I mentioned to the very first panel that

was talking, I think we need to look outside of the box of what currently exists, and say, ‘‘If we were developing a system, is this

what we would end up with, or are there changes needed that can

improve this system?’’

And there may be disagreements among various groups, even

within the VSOs, as to what might be necessary to improve it, but

our goal, I think, is all the same.

While I understand that when you look back in 1944, when the

LVER program was put in place, that states were not responding

to the needs of veterans in that time, you know, that was 57 years

ago. That does not mean that states will not respond to the needs

of veterans in this day and age.

But I do believe that, as a couple of people mentioned, trust is

one of the big issues. And you know, I am kind of like Ronald

Reagan in that it is ‘‘trust and verify.’’

And that is why you have to have some type of performance and

measurable standards to make sure that these individuals, if given

flexibility to do things to better address veterans, if we think that

is the way to go, that there is accountability there, that we do verify that veterans are being treated and served as they are intended.

And if not, then they lose the trust and they lose the flexibility.

So I guess that is what I am saying. But given that many of the

veterans are not receiving the service now, are not getting jobs, not

being placed in jobs now, can we defend the current system as it

exists, or do you have specific changes that ought to be made? Mr.

Robertson?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, sir. First of all, I took a little statistics

class a long time ago, and one of the first lessons I learned is figures never lie, and liars figure.

I can tell you definitively that veterans do get jobs. Whether job

service or the VETS personnel accurately take credit for those jobs

is a whole different situation.

I will give you a case in point. I was stationed in Minot, North

Dakota. There was an Air Force base there, and I used to do job

training programs for the guys leaving the military. A lot of them

would come in. The only thing they wanted me to do was to look

at their resume and give them some ideas of jobs that are open in

Wisconsin, and they would go to Wisconsin.

I would never hear from them again, but that does not mean that

they were not employed, because of the oversight, the assistance,

and everything else that I gave them in my job service office.

Now, I did, from time to time, get somebody to mail me back a

card saying, ‘‘Hey, guess what, I am working for Whoever,’’ and I

would annotate that in my records, so I would get a credit for a
48

placement. But to operate from that premise of saying, ‘‘Because

we can’t account for it, it’s not happening,’’ is faulty.

I believe that a lot of the services that are provided through the

veterans programs end up in employment. And like I say, one of

my pet peeves was to focus on whether I was getting retreads,

whether I was getting guys that I had run through the entire

gamut of services, and then they showed up again looking to start

all over in the system.

I would not tolerate that. I used to really give them a rough time

if they came back in and said, ‘‘Look, I showed you exactly what

you needed to do. Now, let me help you with some possible referrals,’’ and then I would work on it on a little closer basis. But my

ultimate goal was to make sure that I taught them how to job-hunt

for the rest of their life.

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I appreciate that. But what you are saying,

from your experience then, is that accountability is kind of an

unmeasurable-type thing.

Mr. ROBERTSON. The only way you could do it is if you were to

go back with the IRS and check and see if they were employed. I

mean, that is the only way you could legitimately find out if you

had Veteran X, and he disappeared, and you had no trace of him,

did he wind up employed. The IRS would have a tax statement

from him.

Mr. SIMPSON. Is there no way of measuring what is successful

placement, and so forth, then? I mean, is that——

Mr. ROBERTSON. In an ideal society, yes. I mean, when I worked

for the guy, got his resume put together, arranged for some interviews, he went to interviews, came back and told me how they

went, and then bingo, bango, bongo, he calls me says, ‘‘Hey, they

hired me,’’ that is the way we would like it to work.

But with some of the clients that you have as a DVOP, if they

are a recovering alcoholic, it is really tough to get them to remember to come into job service. I mean, it is really a challenge. If they

do wind up with employment, I do not think that is going to be one

of their top priorities, is to call me and say, ‘‘Hey, Steve, I did get

a job.’’

Mr. SIMPSON. How do we measure whether VETS is being successful as it currently is established?

Mr. ROBERTSON. Obviously, if placements is the only outcome

that you are looking for, then you are going to have a challenge.

But I think that there are other weighted parts of the job service

program. I mean, in my opinion, the most important thing that you

can do is to find jobs, to have the job openings that you can refer

veterans to. Once the veteran walks through that door to talk to

an employer, the obligation is on the veteran to be able to conduct

himself properly, and to sell his skills or her skills to that employer

and get hired.

But the biggest problem I always found in job service was not

being able to attract enough jobs, enough quality jobs. I mean, I

could get enough McDonald’s jobs, or Burger King jobs, but getting

a job that would provide meaningful employment.

I would rather put a veteran in one full-time job that is paying

him benefits and making him a decent salary so that he can pro-
49

vide for himself and his family, than giving him three part-time

jobs.

And unfortunately, I think most of the job applications that I

saw, I could have gotten him three part-time jobs real quick. But

I did not have the quality jobs, the ones that, you know, would

make him self-sufficient. And those were the kinds, as a DVOP, the

employers, that I would go to to try to open up spots.

And another interesting part is that once you get that job placement, that job announcement, I have got to bring it back to my job

service buddies. And if I cannot place it within a certain time period, then they get to send an applicant to it. Not that I have any

problem with non-veterans, but you know, I worked hard to get

this position, and yes, at the moment in time I may not have somebody exactly that they want, but it is going to be quickly absorbed

by somebody else in the shop.

Mr. GROSS. What is needed is for him to be able to go out and

network and count it as job time. Part of his 35, 40 hours should

be able to go to the Chamber of Commerce, or go to lunches and

rub elbows, and whatever the industrial society in that particular

town is, to be able to be there and say, ‘‘Listen, I have quality people. You ought to give me a turn.’’

It is, once again, it is exposure and relationship. A man with his

skills could do well by being able to get out and spend 5 hours, 6

hours a week just networking the community, building relationships with employers so when he does send the person that he has

given life skills to to go and do the interview, he has received quality referrals, and it will come back, it will just keep happening the

proper way.

Mr. MAGILL. What I can see as a problem—and Calvin just

touched on it—the DVOPs, just as their name implies, disabled veteran outreach program specialists, we were able to get title 38

changed where, for a long time, the DVOP jobs were held exclusively for Vietnam veterans. Now it is expanded.

I do not know if we have seen the results, but a lot of the Vietnam veterans—and I am included in that group—are getting ready

to retire. I think we need to put more emphasis on the DVOPs getting out of the office. And that way, when they do go out and they

do make contact with employers, if they place a veteran in that

company, and they have the relationship with the people that are

responsible to bring these folks on board, they will get the word

back. They will know that veterans are good hires.

And DVOPs are in the local community. It is not that they are

all sitting here in Washington. They are all over the country, and

they need to get more and more out of the office.

Mr. WEIDMAN. We concur on everything that my colleague said,

Mr. Magill, about getting out of the office and doing job development. It really is the key. There are just not enough good jobs at

any of these employment services, and you can verify that by the

next time you go home, just going in and looking, or from your—

on your desk, go into Idaho—I mean, you can network right into

Idaho, and check it out, about what is available in most towns and

list it on there.
50

We know that less than 10 percent of all the jobs in America are

listed anywhere, period. And a much less percentage is listed on

public resources, like the workforce development agencies.

So, it is getting out and developing those jobs, and the DVOPs

who are the most successful, that I know of around the country,

have been given that support and that latitude by their supervisors

and office managers.

But it varies, supervisor to supervisor, office manager to office

manager, and even, from time to time, in the same office, because

those folks turn over. And when they do not have that kind of support, then it, frankly, does not work.

Now, second thing you have is having said that, you can, in fact,

hold people accountable for placements—not obtained employments, because there are too damn many—excuse my language—

there are too darned many games that are played with obtained

employments. And some of them are for real, because people did

something and helped the person, and they will come back and

thank you, like Steve’s example, but in most cases they are

baloney.

You have a lot of DVOPs and LVERs around the country because

their office managers or supervisors put them up to them, are

spending the equivalent of a workday a week, if not more, calling

veterans not to offer assistance, but to find out if they went back

to work, so they could take a chit mark.

And many times, the veterans catch on to this, particularly if

they are angry at the office for not really helping them, they said,

‘‘No, I have not gotten a job.’’ And they will goad you, saying, ‘‘Well,

it has been 2 years.’’ ‘‘Yes, I have not got a job,’’ and just leave it

at that, because they are darned if they are going to tell these people—let these people take a positive hit.

Placements are different. Placements are easily measurable. You

can start off with just 50 placements a year, per DVOP or LVER

of any vet, and at least 12 a year of disabled or special disabled

vets—and we are not talking about a lot of folks there—you should

be able to do that rolling off a log.

But I am going to tell you that there are DVOPs and LVERs in

this country who have not allowed—who are either incapable of

doing that, because of lack of training and support, or they are not

allowed to do their job properly.

If you did that across the system, and nobody fell below that

minimum threshold, your number of placements would double. It

would double, because the good guys who are out there placing 160,

180 people a year, who are difficult to serve, would continue doing

that.

So, I guess the way I would disagree with Mr. Robertson is that

if you can show a minimum performance, you know that a lot more

is happening in order to—beyond that, in terms of salutary activities that are going to help people down the line, as Steve described.

And you can set up job clubs and job club alumni coming back to

the office in the evening, working with the VETS centers, there are

a lot of things that can be done.

But my only point is if you cannot measure it somehow in there,

then we have got a real problem. We are back in the information-
51

sharing business, and then who knows? Quien sabe? I mean, you

know, you shake your head.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Reyes.

Mr. REYES. Thank you very much, and I want to thank the panel

for some outstanding testimony. I think there is two observations

that I want to share with the panel and you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, there are veterans out there getting jobs, and getting

good jobs. Every year, I get the privilege in El Paso of presenting

some awards to local businesses on behalf of the GI Forum, or in

conjunction with the GI Forum, who identify local El Paso businesses who have given the opportunity of employment to veterans.

And these are good-paying jobs, jobs that have with them benefits,

and all of those things.

But the difference is somebody has worked those businesses, and

it is normally the GI Forum, veterans’ advocates working the business community, going out there, beating the bush, and by the

way, businesses, when they network, saying, ‘‘Hey, by the way, you

know, I got a really good worker from the GI Forum who is a veteran that I was not even contemplating.’’

These are all anecdotal stories, but this is exactly what, I think,

we need to have these kinds of programs focus on and that, if we

look at this from a cold, bottom-line profit or loss margin, then

veterans will always lose. The only things veterans will be good for

is cannon fodder out there when it comes time to defend this

country.

I think these kinds of programs are designed, no matter what it

costs, to make sure that we take care of those men and women that

go out there and put their butts on the line for this country. That

was the point that I was making.

You know, there is one cold, stark reality—and I know you know

this, but I have to say it for the record—one of the biggest problems we have when it comes to veterans issues is that only about

30 percent of us in Congress have ever worn that uniform. Dramatic change from when these programs were a priority. And that

is not a knock on Members of Congress that have not worn the uniform, it is just the way things are.

So we have to work much harder at making sure that the Congress knows and understands that when it comes to veterans’

issues, it is not a profit or loss, it is not whether or not we can

meet the standard of GAO, or OMB, or all of these other things,

and we have repeatedly heard those arguments not too long ago

when we did have a surplus, even, ‘‘What do we do with a surplus?’’

A number of us were saying, ‘‘Hey, put the veterans at the front

of the line, and then for the first time, have this country recognize

them for the sacrifices that they have made.’’

That is all water under the bridge. But on the practical side,

knowing all you gentlemen are very much aware of the challenge

that we have, and knowing that, we are expected to optimize the

bang for the buck and all of those other things here. We need you,

more than ever, to work with the committee staff and with us, individually.

And I will frankly tell you—and I tell the VFW this every year

when they come up here to present their legislative agenda and
52

other veterans organizations—that you do not have to worry about

working veterans on the Hill that are Members of Congress. You

work every single body else, because that is the critical point that

cannot be stated enough, as far as I am concerned.

So, when we are looking for solutions, when we are hearing the

kinds of things that are more—that I think are proposed more from

a business-oriented point of view, the issue of block grants and how

you can protect, again, the bottom line and how you can show that

the program is effective by statistics, I could not agree with you

gentlemen more.

And I am glad that—and I hope we never lose the expertise from

you and your organizations to give us some sense of reality of why

we are here, and why we are here collectively.

And ironically enough today, when we are sitting here doing this

hearing, men and women in uniform are half a world away, one

more time, serving this great Nation. Let us not ever forget that.

So I do not have any questions. You know, I think we have covered the gamut here, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that I appreciate, certainly, your leadership on this, and your willingness to

fully explore all the options that are available to us, because when

it really counts, is the ability of us as a Congress to do right by

our veterans, no matter where they served, no matter how they

served, and no matter what situation they find themselves in.

So thank you again for your testimony, and your leadership on

this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Reyes, for

his comments. And I associate myself with him. That is what we

are about here on this committee—trying to make sure that the

veterans both are treated appropriately, and that they get those

things that they have been promised. And we want to make sure,

as we do that, that we do it and improve the services as best we

can.

And the way I look at these reports is not as a vehicle to get rid

of anything, but as a vehicle for thought, to try to improve the services to the veterans. And if there are ways that we can improve

those services, I think you all would agree we ought to do it.

There will obviously be recommendations made, whether it is the

GAO, or by individuals, or different organizations, that may not be

the right way to go. And there may be disagreements among those

things, and we will sit and fight those out, and argue over those.

But ultimately, our goal is to improve the services to the veterans. And as long as we keep that as our focus, and not whether—

who gets credit for what, or whether we are protecting the structure that currently exists, or whatever, I think we will come out

better and the veterans will come out much better.

So I appreciate your advocacy of the veterans. I know that you

all do a tremendous job here, and keep our feet to the fire, which

you should, and I appreciate that.

And I truly enjoy working with Mr. Reyes. He is a true advocate

for veterans all across this country, and we will work to improve

this, and we will continue to work with you and all of those individuals that testified today.

I appreciate all of you being here today, and if there are no further comments, this hearing is adjourned.
53

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

55

A P P E N D I X
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147

Æ